Inge Janssen - WUR
Transcript of Inge Janssen - WUR
Empathic responses in intercultural contexts
An observational descriptive study measuring the influence of time spent abroad,
age, gender, and nationality of parents on empathy for the main character in a
story with a non-Dutch cultural perspective.
Inge Janssen
reg. no. 880305395060
Master thesis, September 2014
Supervised by:
Rico Lie
Gert Jan Hofstede
Nick Degens
External examinor:
Marijn Poortvliet
COM 80430 MSc thesis communication & innovation studies
ii
Preface and acknowledgements
When I reflect on the creation of this thesis I don’t see one path, but many different journeys that are linked and
have resulted in this final product. Writing the proposal was definitely the hardest part. It took time and patience of
myself and my supervisors. Choosing a topic that was totally new for me as well as interdisciplinary, was especially
challenging at the start. In this creative, uncertain, and brainstorm-like phase I was guided intensively by Nick
Degens. I’d like to thank him for the time we spent sharing ideas and trying to find a feasible and innovative
research topic. I learned a lot about the reality of doing research, and Nick helped me to find my own way as a
researcher. After I accepted that my initial ideas were too ambitious, , I felt supported by all my supervisors to find
something that was feasible within the scope of this master thesis. I’d like to thank Gert Jan Hofstede for sharing his
expertise with regard to culture, and for reviewing the statistical data analysis. Even though I wasn’t able to use the
Hofstede cultural dimensions as much as I would have wanted, I feel greatly enriched by the knowledge and
awareness that I received though his lively explanations and examples. I’d like to thank Rico Lie for his calm and
steady support throughout my thesis. I felt empowered by Rico’s clear feedback which allowed me to see the
difference between the issues and the details. I could always count on him to guide me concerning the thesis
requirements. I’d like to thank all supervisors for giving me the time and freedom to explore and for all their help in
finalizing this master thesis.
1
Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 3
2 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Culture & cultural dimensions ..................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Empathy ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Cultural vignette .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Empathic responding ................................................................................................................................... 6
3 THEORETICAL ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................................. 8
4 JUSTIFICATION ............................................................................................................................................... 9
5 OPERATIONALIZATION ............................................................................................................................. 10
5.1 Seven point Likert scale ............................................................................................................................ 10 5.2 Perceived similarity ................................................................................................................................... 10 5.3 Cognitive empathy ..................................................................................................................................... 11 5.4 Affective empathy ..................................................................................................................................... 11 5.5 Cross-cultural experience .......................................................................................................................... 11 5.6 Study phase ................................................................................................................................................ 12
6 DATA ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................................... 13
7 RESEARCH QUESTIONS & HYPOTHESES ............................................................................................. 14
7.1 Research questions .................................................................................................................................... 14 7.1.1 Gender ................................................................................................................................................... 14 7.1.2 Nationality of parents ............................................................................................................................ 14 7.1.3 Age ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 7.1.4 Study phase............................................................................................................................................ 15 7.1.5 Perceived similarity............................................................................................................................... 16 7.1.6 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience ............... 16
7.2 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................................ 16 7.2.1 Gender ................................................................................................................................................... 16 7.2.2 Nationality of parents ............................................................................................................................ 16 7.2.3 Age ........................................................................................................................................................ 17 7.2.4 Study phase............................................................................................................................................ 17 7.2.5 Perceived similarity............................................................................................................................... 18 7.2.6 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience ............... 19
8 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................... 20
8.1 Cultural vignettes ....................................................................................................................................... 20 8.1.1 Cultural vignette Negotiate (protagonist: Jane) ................................................................................... 20 8.1.2 Cultural vignette Lunch (protagonist: Mike) ........................................................................................ 20
8.2 Criteria for participants .............................................................................................................................. 21 8.3 Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................................. 21 8.4 Pre test ....................................................................................................................................................... 22 8.5 Selection of courses ................................................................................................................................... 22 8.6 Execution of experiment ............................................................................................................................ 22 8.7 Data analysis plan ...................................................................................................................................... 22
9 RESULTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 27
9.1 Factor analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 27 9.2 Vignettes .................................................................................................................................................... 27 9.3 Countries ................................................................................................................................................... 29 9.4 Gender ....................................................................................................................................................... 30 9.5 Nationality of parents ................................................................................................................................ 31 9.6 Age ............................................................................................................................................................ 32 9.7 Study phase ................................................................................................................................................ 32
9.7.1 Bachelor versus master students ........................................................................................................... 32 9.7.2 Study year in the bachelor ..................................................................................................................... 32
2
9.8 Perceived similarity ................................................................................................................................... 33 9.9 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience .................... 33
9.9.1 Correlations between cognitive and affective empathy ......................................................................... 33 9.9.2 Correlations between cognitive empathy and cross-cultural experience .............................................. 33 9.9.3 Correlations between affective empathy and cross-cultural experience ............................................... 34
9.10 Study ..................................................................................................................................................... 37 9.10.1 Bachelor biology ............................................................................................................................... 40
1 0 CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 41
10.1 Vignettes ............................................................................................................................................... 43 10.2 Perceived similarity ............................................................................................................................... 43 10.3 Cross-cultural experience ...................................................................................................................... 44 10.4 Gender ................................................................................................................................................... 44 10.5 Nationality of parents ............................................................................................................................ 44 10.6 Age ........................................................................................................................................................ 45 10.7 Study phase ........................................................................................................................................... 45 10.8 Study ..................................................................................................................................................... 46 10.9 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience ............... 46 10.10 Bennett framework of intercultural sensitivity ...................................................................................... 47 10.11 Nelson and Baumgarte (2004) ............................................................................................................... 47 10.12 Main conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................... 48
1 1 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 49
APPENDIX 1. QUESTIONNAIRE WITH VIGNETTE LUNCH (PROTAGONIST MIKE) ............................ 50
3
1 Introduction
Intercultural communication is important in an increasingly globalizing world. People need smooth intercultural
communication when they meet people from different cultures in their leisure, study, or job. Intercultural
communication is generally described as challenging (Bennett, 1998; Chen & Starosta, 1998; Cushner & Brislin,
1997; Hall, 2005). There are many books and articles written about the topic of intercultural communication and the
majority of them aim to improve intercultural communication (Bennett, 1998; Chen & Starosta, 1998; Cushner &
Brislin, 1997; Hall, 2005). In the world of today there are still intercultural misunderstandings and therefore
intercultural communication remains an important area of research. In the present study, culture is defined as the
“collective programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from
another” (Hofstede, Hofstede, & Minkov, 2011). Communication is “an interdetermining process in which we
develop a mutually dependent relationship by exchanging symbols” (Chen & Starosta, 1998, p. 21). Intercultural
communication is “communication between people from two different cultures” (Chen & Starosta, 1998, p. 28).
Many scientists have done research on and/or have theorized about what characteristics people have that
are very successful in intercultural communication. Personality characteristics and various skills were identified.
Milton Bennett has developed a model of intercultural sensitivity that describes the development of intercultural
sensitivity in six sequential stages: denial, defence, minimization, acceptance, adaptation, and integration (Hammer,
Bennett, & Wiseman, 2003). The term ethnocentrism encompasses the first three phases of intercultural sensitivity
(denial, defence, and minimization) and reflects the culturally less sensitive mind-set. Ethnorelativism encompasses
the latter three stages of cultural sensitivity (acceptance, adaptation, and integration) and reflects the culturally more
sensitive mind-sets. People who are in the first stage (denial) are unable to see any cultural difference and only have
access to their own cultural worldview. People who are in the last stage (integration) are able to see complex cultural
differences between two or more cultures and have incorporated those cultures into their identity.
(Hammer, et al., 2003)
In the present study we will use Bennett’s concept of a continuum of intercultural sensitivity. Bennett has
developed a tool that can place someone in a stage on the continuum. This tool is proprietary and cannot be accessed
given the limited financial resources of this study. Still, Bennett’s theory provides insights that are meaningful to
shape the present study. In the present study we develop a tool to measure cross-cultural experience. We will focus
only on one of the aspects that define intercultural sensitivity: empathy. Bennett mentions empathy in the
integration phase (Hammer, et al., 2003).
Empathy is regarded as an important concept in intercultural communication (Broome, 1991). Empathy in
intercultural communication mostly doesn’t occur easy and naturally. Empathy is therefore recognized as an
important training goal in the field of cross-cultural training (Cushner & Brislin, 1997, pp. 205-220). Research of
Nelson and Baumgarte (2004) shows that it's harder to empathize with people of a different cultural perspective.
Broome recognizes the difficulties to empathy in intercultural communication and states that “we can have no direct
knowledge about the mental experiences of another person” (Broome, 1991, p. 237).
Intercultural communication and empathy in intercultural communication are regarded as challenging. The focus of
cross-cultural training on empathy as a skill suggests that it could be trained. Empathy is also seen as a logical result
of becoming more culturally sensitive. However, there is no research in the field of cross-cultural training which
examines the effect of training on empathy in particular.
4
Given the importance of enhancing empathy in intercultural communication and the difficulties of enhancing
it, the present study will focus on understanding the relationship between someone’s previous cross-cultural
experience could influence his/her empathic response.
Aim: to find out whether there is a correlation between the amount of cross-cultural experience
someone has had in his/her life, (paying special attention to the experiences during his/her study) and
his/her empathic response towards a different cultural perspective.
Future research
Fulfilling this aim could will give more insight in the factors that influence (enhance or inhibit) empathy. This
knowledge could be used in designing cross-cultural training that specifically targets the enhancement of cross-
cultural empathy. The step after that would be to test the effectiveness of this cross-cultural empathy training.
5
2 Background
Firstly, culture and cultural dimensions will be discussed; secondly, the concept of empathy is discussed. Thirdly,
the tool for replicating the experience of a cross-cultural encounter, a cultural vignette, which is used in this study,
will be defined. Fourthly, empathic responding and will be discussed.
2.1 Culture & cultural dimensions
In the present study, the definition of culture comes from the book "cultures and organizations - software of the
mind" (Hofstede, et al., 2011). There, culture is defined as a: "collective programming of the mind that distinguishes
the members of one group or category of people from another". Culture is seen as a set of expectations, values,
beliefs, ideals, and views of life people hold. Hofstede (Hofstede, et al., 2011) describes that culture manifests itself
at two levels: values and practices. Values form the heart of a culture. They are feelings and are distinguished from
practices. Values deal with what is: moral vs. immoral, good vs. bad, abnormal vs. normal, etc.
For identifying the dimensions where cultures differ, several taxonomies have been developed. For example,
Hofstede (Hofstede, et al., 2011) defined six dimensions: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, indulgence versus
restraint, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, and long-term versus short-term
orientation. (Hofstede, et al., 2011) Examples of important values in individualistic cultures are: close friendships,
tolerance of others, and trustworthiness (Hofstede, et al., 2011). An example of a cultural practice is how deep one
should bow in different social contexts in Japan.
2.2 Empathy
Empathy is in the present study defined as “the result of the ability to put oneself in another’s place, to know others’
experiences from their perspective, while at the same time recognizing that the source of one’s experience lies in the
other” This definition is based on the definition of empathy in the book of Cushner and Brislin (1997, p. 205).
Putting ‘oneself in another’s place’ and ‘to know others’ experience from their perspective’ can result in empathic
feelings (for example feeling bad for someone) and in empathic thoughts (for example understanding how
someone’s previous experiences explain their actions). We call emotional aspects of empathy, affective empathy,
and the mental aspects of empathy cognitive empathy. Nelson and Baumgarte (2004) use in their study questions to
measure cognitive and affective empathy. The present study uses the same questions as Nelson and Baumgarte –
though translated in Dutch. The concept of empathy is divided into cognitive and affective empathy because it
provides basis for deeper theoretical analysis. Nelson & Baumgarte (2004) found that cognitive empathy seems to
be the mediator in intercultural empathy. This means that increasing cognitive empathy will probably increase
affective empathy as well.
Empathy is in literature distinguished from sympathy (Broome, 1991). Sympathy is feeling with someone under the
assumption that the other is identical to you. When sympathizing, you wonder how you would feel in someone’s
situation, regardless of how the other actually perceived it. Empathy overlaps with sympathy in the cases where
someone feels exactly the same as you would (imagine to) feel in their situation. Empathy is different from
sympathy because empathy requires some degree of mental flexibility to adopt the unique perspectives (feelings,
thoughts, associations, memories, drives, relationships) of the other (regardless of how you would feel in the
situation).
6
There are many ways in which empathy has been conceptualized in literature. In the present study, the
conceptualization of a well-known article by Decety and Jackson (2004, p. 75) is used:
- “affective sharing between the self and the other, based on perception-action coupling that lead to shared
representations;
- self-other awareness. Even when there is some temporary identification, there's no confusion between self
and other;
- mental flexibility to adopt the subjective perspective of the other and also regulatory processes”
In the subjective experience of empathy the three aspects interact and work together. As the self-other awareness is
only problematic in the case of total identification with the other (contagion) (Decety & Jackson, 2004) and we will
not include this aspect in our research.
2.3 Cultural vignette
We define a cultural vignette as “a short impressionistic scene that gives an insight into a certain cultural
perspective”. A cultural vignette contains narrative elements. The main character of the story, the protagonist of the
story, experiences an unpleasant situation that is caused by the interaction of the protagonist with one or more
people –the antagonist(s) of the story. The antagonist(s) have a different culture than the protagonist. The vignette
describes the feelings and thoughts of the protagonist and not those of the antagonist(s).
We will give Dutch participants cultural vignettes in which the antagonist represents the Dutch perspective to the
situation, and the protagonist represents the non-Dutch perspective to the situation (this represents the dissimilar
story from Nelson and Baumgarte as will be described in chapter 2.4). For example, the antagonist is Dutch and the
protagonist is African.
We expect that Dutch participants who are in one of the ethnocentric phases will have more trouble understanding
the thoughts and feelings of the protagonist than participants who are in one of the ethnorelativistic phases and that
hence the former will experience less empathy for the protagonist than the latter.
2.4 Empathic responding
The existence of intercultural misunderstandings highlights that intercultural understanding cannot be taken for
granted. This subchapter will explain why it is harder to feel empathy for people of a different culture, and what
aspects could raise or lower empathy.
Viewing culture as "a mental programming of the mind", makes it easier to understand why there are intercultural
communication problems, obstacles, difficulties, and misunderstandings. In everyday communication people make a
lot of assumptions and hold many expectations. When two people with different sets of expectations meet, chances
are that miscommunications arise. A simple example is the ‘thumbs up’ gesture which means ‘one’ in Germany,
‘five’ in Japan and ‘good job’ in North America. Interpreting intercultural situations involves mental automatisms
which are mostly coloured by culture. These automatisms quicken and smoothen daily communication on the one
hand but may lead to misattributions on the other hand, especially when communicating across cultures.
7
In the research of Nelson and Baumgarte (2004), it is shown that it's harder to empathize with people of a different
cultural perspective. In their study, US participants were asked to read small stories in which the main character,
‘target’ (identical to the term protagonist in the present study –which will be used instead of target henceforth), was
either culturally similar or dissimilar with the US culture. The US culture is individualistic. In the culturally similar
story featured an individualistic protagonist and a collectivistic antagonist. In the culturally dissimilar story featured
a collectivistic protagonist and an individualistic antagonist. Nelson (2004) hypothesized that the U.S. participants
would find it easier to relate to the story with an individualistic main character because the U.S. culture is
categorized as individualistic. People from individualistic cultures would be more familiar with individualistic
perspectives and find it easier to understand perspectives, beliefs, and values that coincide with individualistic
perspectives, beliefs, and values. The research concluded that the U.S. participants felt indeed less empathy after
reading the story with a collectivistic main character and could relate less with the collectivistic main character.
The mental flexibility to adopt the subjective perspective of another person can be steered consciously. An
experiment by social psychologist Erza Stotland in 1969 (Decety & Jackson, 2004, p. 84) shows that the deliberate
act of imagining someone's pain in a video causes bigger physiological stress than just watching. Students who
watched a video of someone having a conversation, were more empathic when they were asked to take the
perspective of this person (Regan & Totten, 1975). There is much more evidence to the notion that the ability to
adopt someone else's point of view is an effortful and controlled process. This makes empathy and intentional
capacity and makes it susceptible to social cognitive intervention through, for example, training or enhancement
programs. (Decety & Jackson, 2004)
There is some literature on empathy training outside the field of intercultural communication. Stepien and
Baernstein (2006) reviewed twelve studies on training clinical empathy. Also in literature on sex offenders and
psychotherapy, there is a focus on enhancing empathy in respectively sex offenders and therapists.
Nelson (2009) found that feeling good promotes intercultural empathy, probably because feeling good promotes
open-mindedness. An inhibitor of empathy is the perceived fairness of others. In a research where participants
watched a video of someone who received pain stimuli while playing an economic game, the participants felt less
empathy for players who played unfair. (Singer et al., 2006)
Research has shown that females score significantly higher on empathy than males (Myyry & Helkama, 2001).
8
3 Theoretical assumptions
Based amongst others on the literature that was presented in the background, several theoretical assumptions are
made in the present study. The first theoretical assumption is that the items to measure affective empathy, cognitive
empathy, and perceived similarity, derived from Nelson and Baumgarte (2004), are reliable and precise. These
items will also be used in the present study. Secondly, we assume that the extent of cross-cultural experience is
mainly shaped by the amount of time spent abroad and the amount of different countries visited for residing, work,
study, and holidays. We assume that the more cross-cultural experience someone acquires, the more empathy,
compassion, understanding, etc. he or she develops for different cultural views. We assume that the more empathy
someone had for different cultural views, the more empathy he or she will experience for a ‘foreign’ protagonist. We
assume that we can measure these empathic experiences using the items created by Nelson & Baumgarte (2004). We
assume that the Dutch student population is comparable to the US student population and we assume that the Dutch
student would experience less empathy for a dissimilar vignette than to a similar vignette, just like the US
participants experienced in the study of Nelson & Baumgarte (2004).
9
4 Justification
In today's increasingly globalized world, intercultural communication is more important than ever. However,
intercultural communication has many challenges and is not naturally easy. (Bennett, 1998; Chen & Starosta, 1998;
Cushner & Brislin, 1997; Hall, 2005) Two cultures have, depending on how much the cultures differ, different
values (Hofstede, et al., 2011). Research has shown that it is more difficult to empathize with someone who has a
different cultural perspective (Nelson & Baumgarte, 2004). There are things that contribute to bridging this gap -for
example, positive affect increases intercultural empathy. (Nelson, 2009)
In cross-cultural training empathy has not been researched separately. To help understand what factors could
contribute to enhancing intercultural empathy the present study researches the effect of cross-cultural experience on
cross-cultural empathy. In order to do this, a set of questions is developed to measure cross-cultural experience. Two
cultural vignettes will be used to simulate the experience of intercultural encounters. Questions to measure empathy
are derived from Nelson and Baumgarte, because the items that were used in this study were highly intercorrelated
(Cronbach’s alpha affective empathy: 0,92; Cronbach’s alpha cognitive empathy: 0,85) and were able to measure
differences in empathy between two groups (Nelson & Baumgarte, 2004).
10
5 Operationalization
To assess whether cross-cultural experience is linked to empathic responding, the present study will collect
quantitative data whenever possible, (such as number of countries visited or months spent abroad for study) creating
scale data. When using scale data is not possible, when we are for example interested in the degree to which
participants agree with propositions (such as I like foreign cultures) we use a seven-point Likert scale, creating
ordinal variables.
This chapter will operationalize the seven-point Likert scale in sub-chapter 5.1. Empathy is measured with a seven-
point Likert scale and divided into cognitive empathy (sub-chapter 5.3) and affective empathy (sub-chapter 5.4).
Perceived similarity (sub-chapter 5.2), also measured on a seven-point Likert scale. Cross-cultural experience (sub-
chapter 5.5) is measured with both quantitative and Likert scale questionnaire items. Study phase is operationalized
in subchapter 5.6.
5.1 Seven point Likert scale
A Likert scale is used to assess the degree to which participants feel agreement to a certain proposition ranging from
not at all to completely. The Likert scale is very suitable for assessing such subjective measurements (Jaeschke,
Singer, & Guyatt, 1990). The number of categories used to assess the extent of agreement on a Likert scale can vary
from three categories to ten categories or more. With an even number of categories there is no middle, or neutral,
category. In the present study we want to give the participant the choice to answer neutral so we choose for an odd
number of categories. We want to measure the slightest difference between the participants and will use a scale with
many different choices so they can score precisely how they feel. Using too many categories, however, is also not
desired due to unnecessary complication. The disadvantage of using Likert scale is that it produces ordinal data. The
visual analogue scale (VAS) is a continuous scale and produces continuous data. The disadvantage of the VAS is
that it is time consuming to use for the researcher. Every answer of every participant needs to be measured with a
ruler. Research that compared VAS and seven-point Likert scale showed that both methods had comparable
responsiveness and validity. (Jaeschke, et al., 1990) Due to the fact that the Likert scale is easier to administer and
provides data that is equal to that of the VAS, we will use a seven-point Likert scale.
The seven possible choices of the Likert scale that are presented to the participants are: completely disagree,
disagree, slightly disagree, neutral, slightly agree, agree, and completely agree. Each category receives a code which
is used to label the category: 1 = completely disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = slightly disagree, 4 = neutral, 5 = slightly
agree, 6 = agree, and 7 = completely agree. The seven-point Likert scale will be used for the following questions: 2
– 13 (perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, and affective empathy), 18 & 19 (frequency holidays abroad), 22 – 24
(interaction with other cultures within and outside studies, and interest in foreign cultures).
5.2 Perceived similarity
The variable perceived similarity measures how similar the participant feels to the non-Dutch protagonists (Mike
and Jane). The degree to which the participants agree to the proposition in question 2 of the questionnaire (appendix
1), ‘I feel similar to Mike’, indicates the amount of perceived similarity. This question was also used in Nelson &
11
Baumgarte (2004). We will measure the extent of perceived similarity with a seven-point Likert scale which makes
it an ordinal variable.
5.3 Cognitive empathy
The items on cognitive empathy measure the extent to which the participants experience cognitive empathy towards
the non-Dutch protagonists (Mike and Jane, from now on referred to as Mike) in the cultural vignette. Cognitive
empathy will be measured by asking the participants the extent to which they agree with the following six
statements: Mike is to blame for his bad feelings (reversed); Mike's distress a result of the unpleasantness and
difficulty of the situation; Mike's emotional reaction is appropriate to the situation; I find it difficult to relate to what
Mike is feeling (reversed); an average person would have responded the same way as Mike; I would have responded
differently than Mike (reversed) (questions 3-8 of the questionnaire in appendix 1). These questions are based on
Nelson & Baumgarte (2004). The extent of cognitive empathy will be measured with a seven-point Likert scale,
which makes it an ordinal variable.
The items on cognitive empathy are used to make a composite index of cognitive empathy: cogn_index. The data
analysis plan in sub-chapter 8.7 shows how this cogn_index is composed. This index will be used to answer the
research questions and hypotheses regarding cognitive empathy.
5.4 Affective empathy
Affective empathy will be assessed by asking the participants how sympathetic, compassionate, moved, warm, and
soft-hearted they felt as they read the story (questions 9-13 of the questionnaire in appendix 1). These questions are
based on Nelson & Baumgarte (2004). The extent of affective empathy will be measured with a seven-point Likert
scale, which makes it an ordinal variable.
The items on affective empathy are used to make a composite index of affective empathy: aff_index. The data
analysis plan in sub-chapter 8.7 shows how this aff_index is created. This index will be used for answering the
research questions and hypotheses regarding affective empathy.
5.5 Cross-cultural experience
Cross-cultural experience will be measured with questions 14-24 of the questionnaire (see appendix 1). These
questions measure how often participants interact with people of a different cultural background inside their studies
(question 22) and outside their studies (question 23); whether participants are interested in different cultures
(question 24); how often participants go on holidays abroad (questions 18 & 19); how much time participants have
spent abroad for study, residing, and work (questions 14-17); and how many countries participants have visited for
study, residing, work, and holidays (questions 14-17 and 19). Questions 14 – 17 and 20 provide numerical data
(number of countries and time spent abroad) and create scale variables. Questions 18, 19, and 22 – 24 create ordinal
variables using a seven-point Likert scale.
Questions on cross-cultural experience are used to place participants on a scale, ranging from “low cross-cultural
experience” to “high cross-cultural experience”. This scale is used to measure the extent to of cross-cultural
12
experience. The data analysis plan in sub-chapter 8.7 shows how the questions of the questionnaire are used to rank
participants on this scale.
The composite index of cross-cultural experience will be called exp_index. Sub-chapter 8.7 explains how this index
variable is created.
5.6 Study phase
The variable study phase measures how far the student is his/her studies. In the course of their study, students have
to finish a bachelor program before they can enrol into a master program. Students can therefore be classified as
either bachelor student, or as master student. Studying in the master is successive to studying in the bachelor. Not
all students that do a bachelor proceed with doing a master but all students who are enrolled in a master program
have finished a bachelor program.
Study year within the bachelor and the master are also measured as indicator of progress in the study. Although a
bachelor officially takes three years and a master takes two years, students often study longer than this and are
enrolled in their bachelor or master for longer than three resp. two years.
13
6 Data assumptions
This chapter will explain the assumptions that are made about the data that will be collected. These assumptions
underlie the research questions and hypotheses. During data analysis will be checked whether the data meet the
following expectations:
There is an equal proportion of males and females within:
bachelor and master students
students in different study years within the bachelor and the master,
students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and students who have
two non-Dutch parents,
students of different ages,
students who had vignette lunch and students who had vignette negotiate.
Within bachelor students, master students, and students of each different study year there is an equal
proportion of:
students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and students who have
two non-Dutch parents,
students who had vignette lunch and students who had vignette negotiate.
Within students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and students who
have two non-Dutch parents there is an equal proportion of:
students of different ages,
students who had vignette at lunch and students who had vignette negotiate.
Regarding vignette lunch and negotiate the age distribution is the same within each vignette.
Students who had vignette lunch and students who had vignette negotiate will not report different levels of:
perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience.
14
7 Research questions & hypotheses
Since Bennett’s (Hammer, et al., 2003) questionnaire to measure intercultural sensitivity is proprietary, and since the
present study lacks time and resources to reinvent this questionnaire, we focus on one aspect of Bennett’s theory:
empathy. Empathy is recognized to be important in intercultural communication and training.
The main research question is: assess whether exposure to non-Dutch cultures moves Dutch students to later
stages of the Bennett framework of intercultural sensitivity. The main hypothesis is: Dutch students who had more
cross-cultural experiences will report more empathy for a non-Dutch protagonist.
It should be kept in mind throughout this chapter that the participants are Dutch students aged 18-35 years old. More
specific information about the criteria of the participants can be found in subchapter 8.2. Table 1 shows which
variables are used in which research question and hypotheses.
Table 1. Overview of which variables are used in research questions and corresponding hypotheses (1.1 – 15).
Gender Parents’
nationality
Age Study
phase
Perceived
similarity
Cogn_index Aff_index
Perceived similarity 1.1 2.1 3.1 4 9 - -
Cogn_index 1.2 2.2 3.2 5 10 - -
Aff_index 1.3 2.3 3.3 6 11 13 -
Exp_index 1.4 2.4 3.4 7 12 14 15
Age - - - 8 - - -
7.1 Research questions
The research questions (RQs) will be explained in this sub-chapter. Since it is not clear whether it will be possible to
recruit substantial amounts of students of every category, RQs may be cast aside due to lack of data. For example, if
there are not enough fifth year master students to acquire a significant sample.
7.1.1 Gender
RQ 1: Do males and females score differently regarding the extent of perceived similarity, cognitive empathy,
affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience?
Sub-RQ 1.1: Do males and females score differently regarding the extent of perceived similarity?
Sub- RQ 1.2: Do males and females score differently regarding the extent of cognitive empathy?
Sub- RQ 1.3: Do males and females score differently regarding the extent of affective empathy?
Sub- RQ 1.4: Do males and females score differently regarding the extent of cross-cultural experience?
7.1.2 Nationality of parents
RQ 2: Do students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and students who have
two non-Dutch parents score differently regarding the extent of perceived similarity, cognitive empathy,
affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience?
Sub-RQ 2.1: Do students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and
students who have two non-Dutch parents score differently regarding the extent of perceived similarity?
Sub- RQ 2.2: Do students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and
students who have two non-Dutch parents score differently regarding the extent of cognitive empathy?
15
Sub- RQ 2.3: Do students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and
students who have two non-Dutch parents score differently regarding the extent of affective empathy?
Sub- RQ 2.4: Do students who have two Dutch parents, one Dutch parent and one non-Dutch parent, and
students who have two non-Dutch parents score differently regarding the extent of cross-cultural experience?
7.1.3 Age
RQ 3: To what extent is age correlated with the extent of perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, affective
empathy, and cross-cultural experience?
Sub-RQ 3.1: To what extent is age correlated with the extent of perceived similarity?
Sub- RQ 3.2: To what extent is age correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy?
Sub- RQ 3.3: To what extent is age correlated with the extent of affective empathy?
Sub- RQ 3.4: To what extent is age correlated with the extent of cross-cultural experience?
7.1.4 Study phase
RQ 4: To what extent do students in different phases of their study perceive similarity?
Sub- RQ 4.1: Do bachelor and master students score differently regarding the extent of perceived
similarity?
Sub- RQ 4.2: To what extent is study year in the bachelor correlated with the extent of perceived
similarity?
Sub- RQ 4.3: To what extent is study year in the master correlated with the extent of perceived similarity?
RQ 5: To what extent do students in different phases of their study experience cognitive empathy?
Sub- RQ 5.1: Do bachelor and master students score differently regarding the extent of cognitive empathy?
Sub- RQ 5.2: To what extent is study year in the bachelor correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy?
Sub- RQ 5.3: To what extent is study year in the master correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy?
RQ 6: To what extent do students in different phases of their study experience affective empathy?
Sub- RQ 6.1: Do bachelor and master students score differently regarding the extent of affective empathy?
Sub- RQ 6.2: To what extent is study year in the bachelor correlated with the extent of affective empathy?
Sub- RQ 6.3: To what extent is study year in the master correlated with the extent of affective empathy?
RQ 7: To what extent have students in different phases of their study had cross-cultural experience?
Sub- RQ 7.1: Do bachelor and master students score differently regarding the extent of cross-cultural
experience?
Sub- RQ 7.2: To what extent is study year in the bachelor correlated with the extent of cross-cultural
experience?
Sub- RQ 7.3: To what extent is study year in the master correlated with the extent of cross-cultural
experience?
RQ 8: To what extent is age correlated with study phase?
Sub- RQ 8.1: Is the age distribution within bachelor students different from the age distribution within
master students?
Sub- RQ 8.2: To what extent is study year in the bachelor correlated with age?
Sub- RQ 8.3: To what extent is study year in the master correlated with age?
16
7.1.5 Perceived similarity
RQ 9: To what extent do participants feel similar to the protagonist?
RQ 10: To what extent is the extent of perceived similarity correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy?
RQ 11: To what extent is the extent of perceived similarity correlated with the extent of affective empathy?
RQ 12: To what extent is the extent of perceived similarity correlated with the extent of cross-cultural experience?
7.1.6 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience
RQ 13: To what extent is the extent of affective empathy correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy?
RQ 14: to what extent is the extent of cross-cultural experience correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy?
RQ 15: to what extent is the extent of cross-cultural experience correlated with the extent of affective empathy?
7.2 Hypotheses
The hypotheses (hyp) and the reasoning behind the hypotheses will be explained in this chapter.
7.2.1 Gender
Hyp 1: Males score lower than females with regard to the extent of perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, and
affective empathy and males and females do not score differently with regard to the extent of cross-cultural
experience.
Sub- hyp 1.1: Males score lower than females with regard to the extent of perceived similarity.
Sub- hyp 1.2: Males score lower than females with regard to the extent of cognitive empathy.
Sub- hyp 1.3: Males score lower than females with regard to the extent of affective empathy.
Sub- hyp 1.4: Males and females do not score differently with regard to the extent of cross-cultural
experience.
Research has shown that females report more feelings of empathy than males (Myyry & Helkama, 2001). We
hypothesize that females score higher on both affective (sub-hyp 1.3) and cognitive (sub-hyp 1.2) empathy. Since
we hypothesize that perceived similarity with the protagonist and empathy are correlated (see hyp 10 & 11), we also
expect that women perceive the protagonist as more similar to themselves (sub-hyp 1.1). This last hypothesis is
however a quite speculative one. There is no information that suggests that males and females have different levels
of cross-cultural experience so we expect that they do not score differently.
7.2.2 Nationality of parents
Hyp 2: Students who have two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-Dutch parent score
intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard to the extent of
perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience.
Sub- hyp 2.1: Students with two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-Dutch
parent score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard to the
extent of perceived similarity.
Sub- hyp 2.2: Students who have two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-
Dutch parent score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard to
the extent of cognitive empathy.
17
Sub- hyp 2.3: Students who have two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-
Dutch parent score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard to
the extent of affective empathy.
Sub- hyp 2.4: Students who have two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-
Dutch parent score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard to
the extent of cross-cultural experience.
We hypothesize that students will experience foreign influences in their upbringing when one or two of the parents
is non-Dutch. This is a very generic hypothesis and is influenced by many factors. When the parent is, for example,
from a culture that is very similar to the Dutch culture, the contribution to cross-cultural experience will be small.
Also when the parent(s) has / have not played an active (or even absent) role in the upbringing of the student the role
of the parent is minimalized.
7.2.3 Age
Hyp 3: Age is positively correlated with the extent of perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, affective empathy,
and cross-cultural experience.
Sub- hyp 3.1: Age is positively correlated with the extent of perceived similarity.
Sub- hyp 3.2: Age is positively correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy.
Sub- hyp 3.3: Age is positively correlated with the extent of affective empathy.
Sub- hyp 3.4: Age is positively correlated with the extent of cross-cultural experience.
We hypothesize that older students will have had more cross-cultural experiences because they have had more time
to travel (sub-hyp 3.4). In sub-sub-chapter 7.2.6 we hypothesize that empathy and cross-cultural experience are
positively correlated (hyp 14 & 15). Combining sub-hypothesis 3.4 and hypotheses 14 & 15 lead to sub-hypotheses
3.2 & 3.3: age is positively correlated with empathy.
In sub-sub-chapter 7.2.5 we loosely hypothesize that perceived similarity is positively correlated with empathy (hyp
10 & 11). Combining sub-hypotheses 3.2 & 3.3 and hypotheses 10 & 11 results in hypothesis 3.1: perceived
similarity and age are positively correlated.
7.2.4 Study phase
Hyp 4: Students who are further in their study perceive more similarity.
Sub- hyp 4.1: Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of perceived
similarity.
Sub- hyp 4.2: Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of perceived similarity.
Sub- hyp 4.3: Study year in the master is positively correlated with the extent of perceived similarity.
Hyp 5: Students who are further in their study experience more cognitive empathy.
Sub- hyp 5.1: Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of cognitive
empathy.
Sub- hyp 5.2: Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy.
Sub- hyp 5.3: Study year in the master is positively correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy.
Hyp 6: Students who are further in their study experience more affective empathy.
Sub- hyp 6.1: Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of affective empathy.
18
Sub- hyp 6.2: Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of affective empathy.
Sub- hyp 6.3: Study year in the master is positively correlated with the extent of affective empathy.
Hyp 7: Students who are further in their study have had more cross-cultural experience.
Sub- hyp 7.1: Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of cross-cultural
experience.
Sub- hyp 7.2: Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of cross-cultural experience.
Sub- hyp 7.3: Study year in the master is positively correlated with the extent of cross-cultural experience.
Hyp 8: To what extent is age correlated with study phase?
Sub- hyp 8.1: Bachelor students are younger than master students.
Sub- hyp 8.2: Study year in the bachelor is positively correlated with age.
Sub- hyp 8.3: Study year in the master is positively correlated with age.
We hypothesize that the longer Dutch studies students are enrolled in their study, the more empathy they will report
for non-Dutch protagonists.
The underlying assumption is that along the trajectory of their study, Dutch students gain intercultural awareness.
Especially during their master because they accumulate intercultural experiences such as: encounters with non-
Dutch students in a lecture, group work, at the University canteen, etc.; discussing previous intercultural experiences
with fellow Dutch students, etc. Students are categorized according to amount of years they’ve been enrolled into
their current master program.
We assume that Dutch students have less contact with international students during their bachelor than during
master program, so within the bachelor there is no steep correlation between study year and empathy and perceived
similarity. Although students become older in the trajectory of the bachelor, so age on the other hand may influence
(bias) the measurements. At Wageningen University, bachelors are only thaught in Dutch and most bachelor
students have Dutch as native language. Probably the largest non-native speakers group is Germans that took a six
week course Dutch prior to entering the bachelor. Also the largest student organizations (Ceres, KSV, Unitas, and
SSRW) that many students join in their first year in Wageningen have (almost) exclusively Dutch members. We
speculate that the main sources of cross-cultural contact between Dutch bachelor students and non-Dutch students,
aside from the Germans, are through housing and recreational activities. In the main buildings for Dutch students
(Haarweg, Dijkgraaf, Hoevestein, and Asserpark) are often one or two international rooms on each corridor. The
location Droevendaal is a lot more international location but not very large compared to the other student housing
facilities, so the amount of Dutch students on Droevendaal is relatively small.
Older students are usually more advanced in their studies, so age most likely coincides with study phase, since
students that are further in their study are usually older.
7.2.5 Perceived similarity
RQ 9: The participants do not feel similar to the protagonist (score lower than 4, neutral, on the 7 point Likert scale,
which means that they disagree with the proposition that they feel similar to the protagonist).
Hyp 10: The extent of perceived similarity has a positive correlation with the extent of cognitive empathy.
Hyp 11: The extent of perceived similarity has a positive correlation with the extent of affective empathy.
Hyp 12: The extent of perceived similarity has a positive correlation with the extent of cross-cultural experience.
19
In Nelson’s study (Nelson & Baumgarte, 2004), perceived similarity towards the protagonist was used to distinguish
two types of cultural vignettes. In one type of vignette the protagonist was culturally similar to the (US) participants
and in one type of vignette the protagonist was culturally dissimilar to the (US) participants. Their hypothesis that
the US participants felt more similar to US protagonists than to non-US protagonists was confirmed. In the present
study we assume that Dutch participants would respond the same way in a similar study. However due to limited
resources we can test only one type of vignette: the dissimilar vignette. To verify that our participants indeed feel
not similar to the protagonist, we do the similarity check (hypothesis 9). Perceived similarity should be on average
lower than ‘4 = neutral’ –the participants should disagree with the propositions that they feel similar to the
protagonist.
One of speculative hypotheses is that perceived similarity correlates positively with the extent of cross-cultural
experience (hypothesis 12). According to the main research question, someone who had had a lot of cross-cultural
experience would be in a later stage of the Bennett framework of intercultural sensitivity, and certain foreign
culture(s) would be incorporated more into their identity. If someone would have incorporated a culture into their
identity, they would indicate that they feel more similar to someone of that culture. It is however not certain that this
identification process is linear. It could be possible that the identification only begins in one of the last stages of
intercultural sensitivity. Combining the expectation that people with more cross-cultural experience perceive
themselves as more similar to the protagonist and the expectation that cross-cultural experience and empathy are
positively correlated (hyp 14 & 15), it’s logical to assume that perceived similarity and empathy are also positively
correlated (hypotheses 10 and 11).
7.2.6 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience
Hyp 13: The extent of affective empathy is positively correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy.
Hyp 14: The extent of cross-cultural experience is positively correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy.
Hyp 15: The extent of cross-cultural experience is positively correlated with the extent of affective empathy.
Cognitive and affective empathy measure a different kind of empathy and should therefore not completely overlap
with each other, otherwise both variables should be combined because they measure the same thing. However
cognitive and affective empathy are both components of empathy and should therefore correlate but not negatively.
It’s relevant to discover how affective empathy and cognitive empathy relate to each other, because they are part of
the same construct, but not identical (hypothesis 13).
Hypotheses 14 and 15 are crucial to answering the main research question (to assess whether exposure to non-Dutch
cultures moves Dutch students to later stages of the Bennett framework of intercultural sensitivity), because they test
whether cross-cultural experience is positively correlated with empathy.
20
8 Research methodology
8.1 Cultural vignettes
The two cultural vignettes (see 8.1.1 and 8.1.2) that are used in the present study are derived from columns in
Resource, a magazine of Wageningen University for students and personnel that comes out every two weeks. The
column ‘Negotiate’, was written by an Indonesian student, (Anggrek, 2011) and ‘Lunch’ was written by a Ghanaian
student (Bryant, 2012). The columns are written by international students who have had an experience in the
Netherlands that is strange, funny, or awkward to them and that they have characterized as ‘typically Dutch’. The
advantage of using these columns is that the students can relate to the topics: they are contemporary and within the
frame of reference of students’ lives.
In the two selected vignettes, the main characters (protagonists) of the cultural vignettes are a Ghanaian
and Indonesian student who experience an uncomfortable situation in the Netherlands due to a perceived cultural
difference between the Ghanaian or Indonesian culture and the Dutch culture. The participants in the present study
are Dutch, so when compared to the research of Nelson (2004), both vignettes are characterized as culturally
dissimilar. In the study of Nelson (2004) the cultural similar condition was also used. The advantage of using two
vignettes as opposed to one, is that it decreases the risk that an abnormality in the vignette largely influences the
outcome of the research.
8.1.1 Cultural vignette Negotiate (protagonist: Jane)
Jane came to the Netherlands to do a PhD at Wageningen University. She is friends with Monica, a Dutch fellow
PhD student. One day Monica invites Jane to her house for a home cooked diner. At the evening of the dinner, Jane
enjoys the food and the conversation with Monica and Monica’s husband John. They discuss work and hobbies and
discover that they all play tennis. Monica suggests that they should play together some time. During the dinner
Jennifer, Monica’s 8 year old daughter, is moving restlessly in her chair and looking bored. When the dessert is
served she eats it up quickly and stands up to leave the table. John says “Jennifer, get back in your chair”. Jennifer
replies “Why do I have to sit? This meal is taking for ever!” John: “Wait until everyone finished their dessert”.
Jennifer: “But I am so bored and my TV program almost begins”. John: “The show is not on until 10 minutes. Wait
5 minutes, and then you can leave the table”. An hour later Monica said to her daughter: “Jennifer, you must stop
watching television”, then Jennifer replied “Why?” Monica answered to her that she had watched long enough and
should stop. Every time Monica or John said: “No”, they had to give an explanation to stop Jennifer from asking
more questions. Jane was embarrassed to see how little respect Jennifer had for her parents. Clearly Monica and
John couldn’t handle both a job and raising a child properly, Jane thought. She felt sorry for Jennifer for the lack of
discipline she received from her parents and was worried for Jennifer’s future. She concluded it would be best not to
accept future invitations for dinner or tennis since this would put a strain on the time Monica and John can spare for
the upbringing of Jennifer.
8.1.2 Cultural vignette Lunch (protagonist: Mike)
Mike is an exchange student at Wageningen University. He meets a Dutch guy, named Tom in one of the lectures.
They often sit next to each other, talk about all sorts of topics, and Mike has the feeling they get along very well. In
one of their talks Tom proposes to have lunch together at the campus restaurant the next day. Mike is exited and
looks forward to an elaborate lunch. Since his stay in the Netherlands he had a lot of unforeseen expenses, this lunch
21
was a welcome treat to look forward to. Then next morning Mike dresses nicely for the occasion. That afternoon
Mike and Tom take a seat at one of the tables in the restaurant. Tom opens his bag, takes out a plastic bag with
sandwiches and starts eating. Mike feels confused but patiently waits for Tom while they are chatting. When Tom
has finished the bread, Mike thinks what he will take for lunch in the restaurant. Then Tom says: “It was nice having
lunch with you”, and walks away, leaving Mike shocked and insulted. What have I done to deserve to be treated so
rude, thinks Mike. Mike was under the impression that Tom could be a friend but feels confused and offended now.
8.2 Criteria for participants
The participants for the present study will be male and female Dutch students at Wageningen University and Avans
Hogeschool aged 18 to 35. Wageningen University and Avans Hogeschool will be used because it is easy to gain
access. Wageningen University is easy because we work / study there. Avans Hogeschool is easy because we have
close access to one of the teachers. The age range 18-35 years represents the phase of early adulthood in the theory
of the developmental psychologist Erik Erikson (Erikson, 1965). This phase distinguishes itself from the other
phases because intimacy vs. isolation is the main conflict in this life phase. In the adolescence phase (12-18 years)
identity vs. role confusion is the main conflict. In the phase following early adulthood, late adulthood, creativity and
care for the next generation are important. Because the age groups differ it is best to choose one age group because
this decreases bias due to different life phases. Also, each age group has experienced different world events (such as
nine eleven) and different influential figures, this also distinguishes the age groups from each other.
8.3 Questionnaire
The questions in appendix 1, to measure empathic response, are derived from an earlier study by Nelson &
Baumgarte (2004) in the US, but Nelson’s hypotheses were different from the present study. Therefore part of the
outcomes can be compared to their research. The data that is derived from these questions is measured on a seven
point Likert scale. The items on cognitive empathy were highly intercorrelated in Nelson’s study (2004)
(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85) as well as the items on affective empathy (Cronbach’s alpha = 0,92). Path analysis
indicated that cognitive empathy was mediating the link between cognitive empathy and affective empathy. The
importance of using the same questions as Nelson and Baumgarte is evident: we hope to find high Cronbach’s
alpha’s in our research, which would indicate high reliability. Also, cognitive empathy and affective empathy are
complex concepts and can be defined and interpreted in many different ways. Altering the questions could lead to
measuring something else than cognitive and affective empathy as defined in Nelson and Baumgarte. Since we want
to build on the findings of their research -that US participants had less empathy for non-US protagonist than for US-
protagonist (Nelson & Baumgarte, 2004)- we shall use the same questions.
Demographical questions will also be asked: age, sex, nationality, nationality of parents, study year, study,
and country of residence.
To measure how much cross-cultural experience the Dutch students had, questions will be asked to the
students about their international experiences on the areas study, work, residing, and holidays. These questions will
be developed in the present study and aim to give a broad view of the amount of cross-cultural experience that the
students have had in their life. To trigger participants to remember all the countries they have visited for holidays, a
list of the most popular holiday destinations of the Dutch (CBS, 2013) will be pre-printed on the questionnaire
(question 20).
22
The data of the experiment will be treated anonymously.
8.4 Pre test
Five Dutch students are asked to judge whether they find the vignettes believable and realistic and whether there are
no abnormalities that stand out. Questions such as: ‘What do you notice about this text?’, ‘How does it make you
feel?’, ‘What do you think about the main character?’, ‘Do you find it realistic?’, ‘Is it understandable?’, ‘Are there
any weird things that stand out?’, etc. will be asked.
8.5 Selection of courses
A list of all courses that are given in period 6 is randomized using random.org/lists. The first ten courses of the list
are selected and teachers are contacted. When the teacher doesn’t give permission or cannot be contacted, the
eleventh, twelfth, etc. course of the list is selected until ten classes are included in the research.
8.6 Execution of experiment
The experiment will be held in May and June. During that time data will be collected at Wageningen University and
Avans Hogeschool. Prior to data collection I will contact teachers of courses that are given in period 6 that are
selected (preferable personal or through telephone) to ask to cooperate with this research. I will shortly explain my
research and how long it will take.
When the teacher has given permission to include the students of his/her course in the research, I will go to the class
to hand out the questionnaires or I will let the teacher do so. The questionnaire can be handed out without special
introduction (other than ‘make it individually in silence’ and ‘please cooperate’) because the introduction text on the
questionnaire is sufficient. The questionnaire also provides the possibility to fill in the respondent’s email address to
learn more about results of the research.
Half of the participants will receive the vignette lunch and half will receive the vignette negotiate. To make sure this
happens, the two vignettes will be placed alternately on the stack before they are handed out (outside the view of the
students).
8.7 Data analysis plan
See tables 2, 3, and 4 for all variables that are mentioned in this chapter.
Step 1. All reversed items will be re-coded so that they are not reversed anymore.
Step 2. Perform explorative factor analysis on all the items to see which items are regarded by the
participants as belonging to separate categories. According to this analysis, questions on cognitive empathy,
affective empathy, and cross-cultural experience should come forward as separate categories.
Step 3. Cronbach’s alpha will be performed to measure internal consistency within items on cognitive
empathy (items 3 -8), affective empathy (items 9-13), and within all items on empathy combined (items 3-13).
23
Cronbach’s alphas for cognitive and affective empathy should be 0,60 or higher. Deviant items will be removed.
The remaining items of cognitive and affective empathy will be summed up for each participant to create the
indexes cogn_index and aff_index respectively (table 2).
Step 4. Check whether the two different vignettes (lunch and negotiate) do not differ with regard to
perceived similarity (using variable 1), affective empathy (using aff_index), and cognitive empathy (using
cogn_index) using Mann-Whitney U test (which is the same as the Wilcoxon rank sum test (Ott & Longnecker,
2001, p. 289)).
Step5. Transform items 18 and 19 to a seven point Likert scale: variable B. (tables 3 and 4) Perform
Cronbach’s alpha to measure internal consistency within items on cross-cultural experience: items 14 – 24 (table 3
& 4). Deviant items will be removed and the remaining items should have a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.60 or higher. The
remaining items are summed up for each participant to create an index on cross-cultural experiences, exp_index.
Step 6. To answer sub-hypotheses 1.2, 1.3, 5.1, and 6.1 (that females (versus males) and bachelor (versus
master) students report more empathy for non-Dutch protagonists) using Mann-Whitney U test. The variables that
are used for empathy are cogn_index and aff_index, which are both ordinal variables. The two variables gender and
bachelor versus master are binominal. This makes the Mann-Whitney U test very suitable to test whether reported
empathy significantly differs between the two sexes and between bachelor and master students. The significance
level will be set on 5 per cent (p 0.05).
To answer hypotheses 14, 15, 5.2, 5.3, 6.2, and 6.3, Spearman Correlation or Kendall’s tau will be used. This test
is suitable because it can be used to measure correlation between two ordinal variables. Hypotheses 14 & 15 are
about the correlation between cross-cultural experience (exp_index) and empathy (cogn_index and aff_index).
Hypotheses 5.2, 5.3, 6.2, and 6.3 are about the correlation between study year and empathy (cogn_index and
aff_index). All these variables are ordinal. The level of significance should be ten per cent or lower (p 0,05).
24
Table 2. Questionnaire items 2 – 13 and cogn_index and aff_index variable
Questionnaire item Variable Index variable:
No. Question: Type 1
Possible
values
Possible
values
2 I feel similar to Mike. O 1-7 2 - -
3 Mike is to blame for his bad feelings. reversed O 1-7 2
Cogn_index 6 – 42 3
4 Mike's distress a result of the unpleasantness and difficulty of the situation. O 1-7 2
5 Mike's emotional reaction is appropriate to the situation. O 1-7 2
6 I find it difficult to relate to what Mike is feeling. reversed O 1-7 2
7 An average person would have responded the same way as Mike. O 1-7 2
8 I would have responded differently than Mike. reversed O 1-7 2
9 While I read the story, I felt sympathetic. O 1-7 2
Aff_index 5 – 35 4
10 While I read the story, I felt compassionate. O 1-7 2
11 While I read the story, I felt moved. O 1-7 2
12 While I read the story, I felt warm. O 1-7 2
13 While I read the story, I felt soft-hearted. O 1-7 2
1. Scale variable (S), ordinal variable (O), or nominal variable (N).
2. Seven point Likert scale from not at all to completely
3. The seven-point Likert scales of the six items are summed up, resulting in a variable that ranges from 6 (when
scoring the 1 on every item) to 42 (when scoring 7 on every item).
4. The seven-point Likert scales of the five items are summed up, resulting in a variable that ranges from 5 (when
scoring the 1 on every item) to 35 (when scoring 7 on every item).
25
Table 3. Questionnaire items 14 – 29, 31 and variables A – D
Questionnaire item Variable
Questionnaire items that are
used to create variables A – D.
No. Subject of item Type1 Possible
values A B C D
14 Current country of inhabitance 14.1 Country N 1 – 193 3 - - O -
14.2 Duration in yr. S 0 – 35 4 O - - -
15 Past foreign countries of inhabitance 15.1 Country N 2 – 193 3 - - O -
15.2 Duration in yr. S 0 – 35 4 O - - -
16 Visits abroad for study 16.1 Country N 2 – 193 3 - - O -
16.2 Duration in yr. S 0 – 35 4 O - - -
17 Visits abroad for work 17.1 Country N 2 – 193 3 - - O -
17.2 Duration in yr. S 0 – 35 4 O - - -
18 Have you ever been on holiday abroad? N
0 = yes
1 = no - O - O
19 How often do you go on holidays abroad on average? O 2 – 7 5 - O - O
20 Countries visited for holidays abroad S 2 – 193 3 - - O -
21 Other experiences abroad (open question) 21.1 Country N 2 – 193 3 - - O -
21.2 Duration in yr. S 0 – 35 4 O - - -
22 Interaction cultures: in study O 1 – 7 2 - - - O
23 Interaction cultures: outside study O 1 – 7 2 - - - O
24 Interest in foreign cultures O 1 – 7 2 - - - O
25 Age S 18 – 35 - - - -
26 Gender N
1 = male
2 = female - - - -
27 Second nationality N 2 – 193 3 - - - -
28 Nationality father 28.1 First N 1 – 193 3 - - - -
28.2 Second N 1 – 193 3 - - - -
29 Nationality mother 29.1 First N 1 – 193 3 - - - -
29.2 Second N 1 – 193 3 - - - -
31 Study phase 31.1 BSc/MSc N
1 = BSc
2 = MSc - - - -
31.2 BSc year O 1 - x - - - -
31.3 MSc year O 1 - x - - - -
1. Scale variable (S), ordinal variable (O), or nominal variable (N).
2. A seven-point Likert scale ranging from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (7).
3. Each country receives a numerical code. This code varies from 1 (1 = The Netherlands) to 193 (total number of countries in the world).
4. Amount of time expressed in years. This number cannot exceed the age of the participant. The age limit of the participants is 35 years.
5. 2 = once every three years or less; 3 = once every two years; 4 = once every year; 5 = twice per year; 6 = three times per year; 7 = four times per year or more.
26
Table 4. Variables A - D
Variable Questionnaire items that are used to create variable
Type1 Possible
values No. Subject of the question
A. Total time spent abroad for
residing, studying, working,
and other in years.
S 0 – 35 2
14 Current country of inhabitance (14.2 duration in years)
15 Past foreign countries of inhabitance (15.2 duration in years)
16 Visits abroad for study (16.2 duration in years)
17 Visits abroad for work (17.2 duration in years)
21 Other experiences abroad (open question) (21.2 duration in years)
B. Average amount of times
participant goes abroad on
holidays yearly.
O 1 – 7 3
18 Have you even been on holidays abroad?
19 How often do you go on holidays abroad on average?
C. Total number of different
countries visited abroad for
residing, studying, working,
holidays, and other.
S 0 – 192 4
14 Current country of inhabitance (14.1 country)
15 Past foreign countries of inhabitance (15.1 country)
16 Visits abroad for study (16.1country)
17 Visits abroad for work (17.1 country)
20 Countries visited for holidays abroad
21 Other experiences abroad (open question) (21.1 country)
D. Combined Likert scale
questions on intercultural
experience / interest.
O 4 – 28 5
18
19
Average amount of times participant goes abroad on holidays yearly.
(Have you even been on holidays abroad? How often do you go on
holidays abroad on average?)
22 Within my studies, I frequently interact with people who have a
different cultural background than me.
23 Outside my studies, I frequently interact with people who have a
different cultural background than me.
24 I am interested in different cultures.
1. Scale variable (S), ordinal variable (O), or nominal variable (N).
2. Amount of time expressed in years. This number cannot exceed the age of the participant. The age limit of the
participants is 35 years.
3. 1=never; 2=once per three years; 3=once per two years; 4=once per year; 5=twice per year; 6=thrice per year; 7=four
times per year or more.
4. Number of countries cannot exceed 192 (total amount of countries in the world excluding The Netherlands)
5. The seven-point Likert scales of the four items are summed up, resulting in a variable that ranges from 4 (when scoring
the 1 on every item) to 28 (when scoring 7 on every item).
27
9 Results
All the 344 Dutch students that were included in the study currently live in the Netherlands so variable 14 (current
country of inhabitance) was discarded. Question 21 (open question regarding experiences abroad) did not contain
information about countries that were visited abroad nor about time spent abroad that wasn’t already mentioned in
questions 15 (past foreign countries of inhabitance), 16 (visits abroad for study), 17 (visits abroad for work), and 20
(countries visited for holidays abroad).
Cronbach’s alpha was performed on items of cognitive and affective empathy. Items on cognitive empathy were
intercorrelated (alpha=0,64), and items on affective empathy were highly intercorrelated (alpha=0,89). Items on
cognitive and affective empathy were summed up to create cogn_index and aff_index respectively.
9.1 Factor analysis
Affective empathy came forward as the first component in the principal component analysis and explained 23 per
cent of the variance in the data. The Likert scale questions on cross-cultural experience (variable B: frequency
holidays abroad, 22 interactions with cultures within study, 23 interactions with cultures outside study, and 24
interest in cultures) came forward as the second factor explaining ten per cent of the variance.
Variables 15.2 (time spent abroad for residing), 16.2 (time spent abroad for study), and 17.2 (time spent
abroad for work) were overlapping with variable A (total time spent abroad) and could not be included in the factor
analysis at the same time. Performing two separate factor analyses showed that using variable A resulted in the
highest percentage of explained variance, and was used instead of variables 15.2, 16.2, and17.2.
Scree plot revealed that there were four components with an eigenvalue greater than one, so the number of
‘factors to extract’ was set to four, and Varimax rotation with Kaiser Nomalisation was applied. The first component
explained twenty percent of the variance, the second component fourteen per cent, the third component ten per cent,
and the fourth component explained nine per cent of the variance. All components combined explained 53 per cent
of the variance. The first component contained all affective empathy items (with extraction values between 0,75 and
0,85). The second component included the item 2 (perceived similarity) and four items on cognitive empathy (item
numbers 5, 6, 7, and 8) with extraction values ranging from 0,51 to 0,75. The third component consisted of four
variables: 22 (interactions with cultures within study), 23 (interactions with cultures outside study), 24 (interest in
cultures), and variable A (total time spent abroad), with extraction values ranging from 0,43 to 0,85. The fourth
component included two variables: variable C (total number of different countries visited) and variable B (frequency
holidays abroad), with extraction values between 0,81 and 0,84. The variables in the third component were not
highly correlated (Cronbach’s alpha = 0,47) and could therefore not be used to create a new index.
When setting the amount of ‘factors to extract’ to three, all cross-cultural experience variables were included in
the third component and the extraction values became lower.
9.2 Vignettes
There were 175 students who had vignette lunch with protagonist Mike, and 169 students had vignette negotiate
with protagonist Jane. Mann-Whitney test revealed that vignettes lunch and negotiate were different with regard to
28
the extent of perceived similarity (item 2 I feel similar to <name protagonist>) (p=0,00), and participants felt least
similar to Mike in vignette lunch (figure 1).
Figure 1. Histogram of perceived similarity in vignette lunch and negotiate
Mann-Whitney test also revealed that vignettes lunch and negotiate were different with regard to the extent of
affective empathy (using aff_index) (p=0,00), and cognitive empathy (using cogn_index) (p=0,01). Participants felt
the most cognitive and affective empathy for Mike in vignette lunch (figures 2 and 3). Because of these differences,
vignettes lunch and negotiate will be analysed separately with regard to perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, and
affective empathy.
Figure 2. Histogram of affective index scores of vignettes lunch and negotiate
29
Figure 3. Histogram of cognitive index scores of vignettes lunch and negotiate
9.3 Countries
All students together visited 118 different countries for residing, study, work, or holidays with an average of nine
different countries per student (figure 4).
Figure 4. Histogram of total number of countries visited (variable C)
30
Table 5. Countries and number of different students visiting per country
Country Number of students
that visited country
Country Number of students
that visited country
Country Number of students
that visited country
France 306 Tanzania 8 Japan 2 Germany 290 Aruba 7 Jordan 2 Belgium 273 Romania 7 Macedonia 2 Spain 229 Argentina 6 Madagascar 2 Italy 227 Latvia 6 Nicaragua 2 Great Britain 216 Peru 6 Panama 2 Austria 188 Slovakia 6 Sri Lanka 2 Switzerland 139 Tunisia 6 Saudi Arabia 2 Czech Republic 123 Brazil 5 Taiwan 2 Greece 113 Cambodia 5 Vatican City 2 Norway/Sweden/Finland 105 Cuba 5 United Arab
Emirates
2 Portugal 90 Costa Rica 5 Belarus 2 Turkey 84 Philippines 5 Zimbabwe 2 united states 71 India 5 South Korea 2 Denmark 64 Kenya 5 Lebanon 2 Luxembourg 43 Mexico 5 Montenegro 2 Poland 42 Botswana 4 Bahamas 1 Croatia 40 Bosnia 4 El Salvador 1 Hungary 36 Dominican
Republic
4 Gran Canaria 1 Canada 30 Lithuania 4 Iraq 1 Egypt 29 Serbia 4 Cameroon 1 Ireland 21 Zambia 4 Kosovo 1 Thailand 20 Fiji 3 Liechtenstein 1 Indonesia 18 Gambia 3 Moldova 1 Morocco 18 Laos 3 Mongolia 1 Australia 16 Namibia 3 Mali 1 Slovenia 15 Netherlands
Antilles
3 Paraguay 1 South Africa 15 Nepal 3 Puerto Rico 1 Russia 12 Oman 3 Pakistan 1 Curacao 11 Saint Martin 3 Swaziland 1 Vietnam 11 Singapore 3 Trinidad 1 Burkina Faso 10 Suriname 3 Trinidad &
Tobago
1 Iceland 10 Andorra 2 Tibet 1 Malaysia 10 Bolivia 2 Venezuela 1 Malta 10 Canary Islands 2 Switzerland 1 new Zealand 9 Cyprus 2 Guatemala 1 China 8 Columbia 2 Cape Verde 1 Ecuador 8 Chile 2 Bonaire 1 Estonia 8 Ethiopia 2 Ukraine 8 Israel 2
Countries were sorted from ‘visited most frequently’ to ‘visited least frequently’ (table 5). The eleven most popular
destinations for residing, study, work, and holidays were: France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Great Britain,
Austria, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Greece, and the cluster ‘Norway/Sweden/Finland’, which were visited by
309, 290, 273, 229, 227, 216, 188, 139, 123, 113, and 105 different students respectively. These countries were used
to create a new variable, Countr_very_popular, to measure how many of these countries were visited by each
student. The ten second most frequently visited countries were: Portugal, Turkey, United States, Denmark,
Luxemburg, Poland, Croatia, Hungary, Canada, and Egypt, which were visited by 90, 84, 71, 64, 43, 42, 40, 36, 30,
and 29 different students respectively. These ten countries were used to create a new variable, Countr_popular, to
measure how many of these countries were visited by each student. Fifteen countries that were each visited by ten to
twenty-one different students, were bundled in the category Countr_scarce, and the remaining countries were
bundled in the category Countr_very_scarce.
We also divided the countries in categories based on continent: Europe, North-America, South-America,
Africa, Asia, and Oceania.
9.4 Gender
There were 182 male and 162 female participants. Within the group of bachelor students in the present study, 56 per
cent of the group consisted of men. Within the group of master students, 42 per cent was male. Within each study of
31
the bachelor, gender was distributed roughly evenly, except for the second year, in which seventy per cent were
men.
The vignette lunch had 81 male and 94 female participants, and vignette negotiate had 101 male and 68 female
participants. Mann-Whitney test indicated that males and females did not differ with regard to perceived similarity
in vignettes lunch and negotiate. Mann-Whitney test revealed that in vignette lunch women scored higher on
affective empathy (p=0,000) and cognitive empathy (0,016) than men (using aff_index and cogn_index). Mann-
Whitney showed that men and women did not differ with regard to cognitive and affective empathy in the vignette
negotiate.
Mann-Whitney test revealed that males and females differ with regard to cross-cultural experience. Women have
spent more time abroad than men (variable A; p=0,001), especially for (volunteer) work (p=0,001). Women have
visited more countries than men (variable C; p=0,02), especially the countries that were overall least visited by the
students were visited more often by the female students (countr_very_scarce, p=0,001). Men reported more
interactions with people from a different cultural background within their studies than women (p=0,013).
Since analysis showed that women and men scored significantly different with regard to empathy and cross-cultural
experience (and because previous literature has shown that men and women differ with regard to empathy), men and
women will be analysed separately.
9.5 Nationality of parents
The large majority, 321 of the students, had two Dutch parents and 23 (15 males, 8 females) students had at least
one non-Dutch parent.
Mann-Whitney test revealed that Male students with at least one non-Dutch parent spent more time abroad for
residence (variable 15.2) (p=0,039), and visited more Asian (p=0,038) and South-American (p=0,003) countries
than Male students with two Dutch parents. Female students with at least one non-Dutch parent visited more North-
American countries (p=0,025) than female students with two Dutch parents.
Within vignette lunch differences in perceived similarity and empathy between students with Dutch parents
and students with at least one non-Dutch parent, were compared using Mann-Whitney test. The women with at least
one non-Dutch parent (n=5) did not differ significantly from the women who had two Dutch-parents. Then men with
at least one non-Dutch parent (n=5) assigned more blame (item 3) (p=0,001) to Mike than the men who had two
Dutch parents.
Within vignette negotiate, differences in perceived similarity and empathy between students with Dutch
parents and students with at least one non-Dutch parent were compared using Mann-Whitney test. Women with at
least one non-Dutch parent (n=3) did not differ significantly from women who had two Dutch-parents. Men with at
least one non-Dutch parent (n=10) felt more similar to Jane (p=0,007), thought that Jane’s response was more
appropriate to the situation (item 5) (p=0,027), and agreed more with the statement that they would have responded
the same way as Jane (item 7) (p=0,027) than the men who had two Dutch parents.
32
9.6 Age
The ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 32 and the students were on average 21 years old. Age was normally
distributed. Men were on average older than women (p=0,045).
Spearman correlations between age and cross-cultural experience were analysed. Age within men was
positively correlated with several indicators of cross-cultural experience: time spent abroad for study (item 16.2)
(0,218; p=0,003), time spent abroad for work (item 17.2) (0,165; p=0,026), interactions with foreign cultures within
the study (item 22) (0,305; p=0,000), total time spent abroad (variable A) (0,254; p=0,001), and number of African
countries visited (0,158; p=0,034). Within women, age was positively correlated in with: the amount of interactions
with foreign cultures within the study (item 22) (0,412; p=0,000), and total time spent abroad (variable A) (0,215;
p=0,006).
Within vignette lunch and negotiate, Spearman correlations were used to find correlations between age and
percieved similarity and empathy. There were no correlations found between age and empathy in men. Within
women who had vignette lunch, age was negatively correlated with perceived similarity (item 2) (-0,267; p=0,009).
Within women who had vignette negotiate, age was negatively correlated with perceived similarity (item 2) (-0,269;
p=0,027) and the reversed version of item 6 (item 6: I find it difficult to relate to what Jane is feeling) (-0,390;
p=0,001).
9.7 Study phase
There were 270 bachelor students and 74 master students. Of the bachelor students, 73 students were in their first
year, 116 were in their second year, 66 were in their third year, 11 were in their fourth year, and 4 were in their fifth
year. Study year in the bachelor will be used for analysis because it follows a normal distribution, but study year in
the master could not be used for analysis because the data were clustered: 61 of the 74 master students were in their
first year.
9.7.1 Bachelor versus master students
Mann-Whitney test revealed that bachelor students felt more similar to Mike in vignette lunch than master students.
There were no differences between bachelor and master students with regard to cognitive and affective empathy in
vignette lunch or in vignette negotiate. Mann-Whitney test indicated that master students are older than bachelor
students (p=0,000). Master students have spent more time abroad in total than bachelor students (variable A;
p=0,000), especially for study (p=0,001). Master students have visited more countries than bachelor students
(variable C; p=0,012), especially countries in the most popular segment (countr_very_popular; p=0,012). Master
students report more interactions with cultures in their study than bachelor students (p=0,000).
9.7.2 Study year in the bachelor
According to Spearman’s correlations there were no correlations within vignette lunch and negotiate between study
year in the bachelor and: perceived similarity, cognitive empathy, and affective empathy.
Spearman’s correlations showed that study year in the bachelor positively correlated (0,629; p=0,000) with age –
students who are further in their bachelor are older. It also showed that study year in the bachelor positively
correlates with amount of time spent abroad for study (variable 16.2) (0,173; p=0,004), and with interaction with
cultures within their study (question 22) (0,174; p=0,004). No significance was found in any other item or index on
cross-cultural experience.
33
9.8 Perceived similarity
A one-sample Wilcoxon signed rank test revealed that participants did not feel similar (Median, M 4) to Mike in
vignette lunch (p=0,00), nor to Jane in vignette negotiate (p=0,00).
Spearman’s correlations showed that in vignette lunch, perceived similarity was positively correlated with
cogn_index (0,504; p=0,000) and aff_index (0,162; p=0,033). It also showed that in vignette negotiate, perceived
similarity was positively correlated with cogn_index (0,504; p=0,000) and aff_index (0,362; p=0,000).
There were no correlations found between perceived similarity and indicators of cross-cultural experience.
9.9 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural
experience
This chapter summarizes the Spearman correlations between: cognitive and affective index (sub-chapter 9.9.1);
cognitive empathy and cross-cultural experience (sub-chapter 9.9.2); and affective empathy and cross-cultural
experience (sub-chapter 9.9.3). The sub-chapters will submit the individual items on cognitive empathy in the
analyses but not the individual items on affective empathy, since affective empathy is a clear and uniform construct
and its items are highly intercorrelated. An overview of the correlations between cross-cultural experience and
empathy can be found in table 6 and 7.
9.9.1 Correlations between cognitive and affective empathy
Affective and cognitive empathy were positively correlated using Spearman’s correlations. In vignette lunch,
cogn_index and aff_index had a correlation of 0,471 (p=0,000) in men and a correlation of 0,338 (p=0,001) in
women. In vignette negotiate, there was a correlation of 0,460 (p=0,000) in men and a correlation of 0,418
(p=0,001) in women.
9.9.2 Correlations between cognitive empathy and cross-cultural experience
In vignette lunch there were eighteen correlations between cognitive empathy and cross-cultural experience (see
table 6).
Within the group of men who had vignette lunch there were twelve correlations between cognitive empathy
and cross-cultural experience. The eight positive correlations were between: number of countries visited in the
Continent Oceania with cognitive empathy; the number of countries visited in the Continent Oceania with item 3;
the number of countries visited in the Continent Oceania with item 8; countr_scarce with item 3; number of Asian
countries visited and item 7; number of Asian countries visited and item 8; countr_popular and item 8; and
interactions with cultures within study (item 22) and item 7. The four negative correlations were between: variable B
and item 3; variable A and item 6; interaction with cultures within study (item 22) and item 6; and
countr_very_popular and item 7.
Within the group of women who had vignette lunch there were six correlations between cognitive empathy
and cross-cultural experience. The four positive correlations were between: item 24 and item 6; item 22 and item 6;
item 15.2 and item 8; and item 15.2 and item 6. The two negative correlations were between countr_very_popular
and item 7, and between number of Asian countries visited and item 8.
In vignette negotiate there were seventeen correlations between cognitive empathy and cross-cultural experience
(see table 7).
34
Within the group of men who had vignette negotiate there were ten correlations between cognitive empathy
and cross-cultural experience. The two positive correlations were between: item 24 and item 3, and number of
African countries visited and item 8. The eight negative correlations were between: number of European countries
visited and cong_index; countr_popular and cogn_index; variable C and cogn_index; variable B and item 6; variable
C and item 6; countr_popular and item 6; countr_scarce and item 6; and number of European countries visited and
item 6.
Within the group of women who had vignette negotiate there were seven correlations between cognitive
empathy and cross-cultural experience. The five positive correlations were between: variable B and item 3; number
of African countries visited and item 3; variable 24 and item 6; number of African countries visited and item 6; and
number of countries visited in the continent of Oceania and item 7. The two negative correlations were between item
22 and item 6, and between number of North-American countries visited and item 7.
9.9.3 Correlations between affective empathy and cross-cultural experience
In vignette lunch there were six correlations between cognitive empathy and cross-cultural experience (see table 6).
These six positive correlations can be found amongst the female students. Affective empathy was correlated with:
item 17.2; item 22; item 23; item 24; countr_very_scarce; and number of North-American countries visited.
In vignette negotiate there were no correlations between affective empathy and cross-cultural experience.
35
Table 6. An overview of significant Spearman correlations between cross-cultural experience and empathy in vignette lunch
Cognitive empathy Affective empathy
Cross-cultural experience Cogn_index Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Aff_index
men women men women men women men women men women men women men women men women
15.2 Total time spent abroad for residing 0,205* 0,210*
16.2 Total duration of visits abroad for study
17.2 Total duration of visits abroad for work 0,259*
22 Interaction cultures: in study -0,277* 0,286**
23 Interaction cultures: outside study 0,314** 0,316** 0,276**
24 Interest in foreign cultures 0,209* 0,466**
Var. A. Total time spent abroad for residing, studying, working, and other in year.
-0,261*
Var. B. Average amount of times participant goes abroad on holidays yearly.
-0,294**
Var. C. Total number of different countries abroad visited for residing, studying, working, holidays, and other.
- Countr_very_popular -0,255* -0,205*
- Countr_popular 0,252*
- Countr_scarce 0,248* - Countr_very_scarce 0,241*
- Europe
- North America 0,248*
- South America
- Africa
- Asia 0,245* 0.240* -0,255*
- Oceania 0,223* 0,256* 0,240*
Item 3. <Protagonist> is to blame for his/her bad feelings. (The reversed version is used in data analysis) Item 4. <Protagonist>’s distress is a result of the unpleasantness and difficulty of the situation. Item 5. <Protagonist>’s emotional reaction is appropriate to the situation. Item 6. I find it difficult to relate to what <Protagonist> is feeling. (The reversed version is used in data analysis) Item 7. An average person would have responded the same way as <Protagonist>. Item 8. I would have responded differently than <Protagonist>. (The reversed version is used in data analysis) * At a level significance level of 0,05 ** At a level significance level of 0,01
Negative correlation
36
Table 7. An overview of significant Spearman correlations between cross-cultural experience and empathy in vignette negotiate
Cognitive empathy Affective empathy
Cross-cultural experience Cogn_index Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 Item 7 Item 8 Aff_index
men women men women men women men women men women men women men women men women
15.2 Total time spent abroad for residing
16.2 Total duration of visits abroad for study
17.2 Total duration of visits abroad for work
22 Interaction cultures: in study -0,248*
23 Interaction cultures: outside study
24 Interest in foreign cultures 0,211* 0,259*
Var. A. Total time spent abroad for residing, studying, working, and other in year.
Var. B. Average amount of times participant goes abroad on holidays yearly.
0,287* -0,231*
Var. C. Total number of different countries abroad visited for residing, studying, working, holidays, and other.
-0,217* -0,271**
- Countr_very_popular
- Countr_popular -0,236* -0,310**
- Countr_scarce -0,201* - Countr_very_scarce
- Europe -0,238* -0,263**
- North America -0,261*
- South America
- Africa 0,257* 0,372** 0,210*
- Asia
- Oceania 0,274*
Item 3. <Protagonist> is to blame for his/her bad feelings. (The reversed version is used in data analysis) Item 4. <Protagonist>’s distress is a result of the unpleasantness and difficulty of the situation. Item 5. <Protagonist>’s emotional reaction is appropriate to the situation. Item 6. I find it difficult to relate to what <Protagonist> is feeling. (The reversed version is used in data analysis) Item 7. An average person would have responded the same way as <Protagonist>. Item 8. I would have responded differently than <Protagonist>. (The reversed version is used in data analysis) * At a level significance level of 0,05 ** At a level significance level of 0,01
Negative correlation
37
9.10 Study
The sample included 47 students of Avans Hogeschool studying HBO Business IT & Management (of which 2 women)
and 297 students from Wageningen University. The Avans students did not differ significantly from the Wageningen
University students. The students from Wageningen University were enrolled in 15 different bachelor and 20 different
master studies. When calculating the ‘perfect amount of students’ from each study that should have been included in our
research, we find that our sample is not at all representative for the student population of Wageningen University (figures
5-7). Especially the biology students are over-represented with 145 people in our sample. Figures 5-7 show how many
students of each study were included in our study, and how may were needed to create a representative sample.
38
Figure 5. Distribution of male and female participants enrolled in each Wageningen University bachelor study (excluding BSc biology), compared to
distribution of males and females in a hypothetical perfect sample
Figure 6. Amount of male and
female participants enrolled in the
bachelor biology, compared to the
amount of males and females in a
hypothetical perfect sample
39
Figure 7. Distribution of male and female participants enrolled in each Wageningen University master study, compared to distribution of males and females in a hypothetical perfect sample
40
9.10.1 Bachelor biology
In addition to the analyses that were described in the previous sub-chapter, the bachelor biology students were
analysed separately. The BSc students did not feel similar to Mike nor to Jane (p=0,000), according to the one-
sample Wilcoxon rank test. They felt least similar to Mike in vignette lunch, according to Mann-Whitney test
(p=0,025). The BSc biology students reported more affective empathy (according to aff_index) in vignette lunch
than in vignette negotiate (Mann-Whitney test; p=0,000). Cogn_index did not differ (p=0,055) between the two
vignettes. There were no correlations found between aff_index and indicators of cross-cultural experience in vignette
lunch, nor in vignette negotiate. There were no correlations found between cogn_index and indicators of cross-
cultural experience, but there were some individual items within cognitive empathy that were related to cross-
cultural experience.
The men in the group of BSc biology students were older (Mann-Whitney test, p=0,001) and further in their
bachelor, according to study year (Mann-Whitney test, p=0,024), than the women.
Mann-Whitney test indicated that within BSc biology students, males and females did not differ with regard to
perceived similarity in vignettes lunch and negotiate. Mann-Whitney test revealed that in vignette lunch, women
scored higher on affective empathy (p=0,006) than men (using aff_index). Women score almost significantly higher
on cognitive empathy (p=0,052) (using cogn_index). Mann-Whitney showed that men and women did not differ
with regard to cognitive and affective empathy in the vignette negotiate.
Mann-Whitney test revealed that, within BSc biology students, males and females differ with regard to cross-
cultural experience. Women have spent more time abroad than men for (volunteer) work (p=0,014) (variable 17.2).
Women have visited more countries than men (variable C; p=0,025), especially countr_very_scarce (p=0,042) and
countr_popular (p=0,018).
Men reported more interactions with people from a different cultural background within their studies (item 22) than
women (p=0,008).
41
10 Conclusions and discussion
The importance of empathy in intercultural communication has been discussed in literature, amongst other by
Hammer, Bennett, and Wiseman (2003); Broome (1991); and Nelson & Baumgarte (2004). Empathy is mentioned
in Bennett’s intercultural sensitivity framework as a quality that is useful for acquiring intercultural competence
(Hammer, et al., 2003) . It seems obvious that traveling abroad and other ways of interacting with foreign cultures
would increase intercultural competence and hence also empathy. This relationship between cross-cultural
experience and empathy has however previously not been researched according to the best of our knowledge. In the
present study we researched the link between cross-cultural experience and empathy and we operationalized the
concept ‘cross-cultural experience’. Empathy was measured using the questions that were used by Nelson and
Baumgarte (2004) in their research. The outcomes of the present study allow new insights to emerge regarding the
relationship between empathy and cross-cultural experience. The explorative part of our study - developing
questions to measure cross-cultural experience – can be used as a source of inspiration for future research.
The main research question of the present study was “assess whether exposure to non-Dutch cultures moves Dutch
students to later stages of the Bennett framework of intercultural sensitivity”. The main hypothesis was “Dutch
students who had more cross-cultural experiences will report more empathy for a non-Dutch protagonist”. Table 9
provides an overview of the hypotheses with their status (accepted, rejected, etc.). Table 8 shows the numbers of the
hypotheses and the status of every hypothesis (accepted, rejected, etc.) and which variables corresponded to each
hypothesis. Sub-chapters 10.2, 10.4 - 10.7, and 10.9 explain how these conclusions are supported by the data. Sub-
chapter 10.2 perceived similarity goes deeper into hypotheses 9-12. Sub-chapter 10.4 gender goes deeper into
hypotheses 1.1-1.4. Sun-chapter 10.5 nationality of parents elaborates on hypotheses 2.1-2.4. Sub-chapter 10.6 age
elaborates on hypotheses 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2, 8.1, and 8.2 are explained in sub-chapter 10.7
study phase. Sub-chapter 10.9 elaborates on hypotheses 13-15.
Table 8. Overview of the numbers of the hypotheses (1.1 – 15) with their status (accepted, rejected, etc.) and the variables
(gender, age, etc.) that correspond with each of the hypotheses
Gender Parents’ nationality Age
Study phase Perceived
similarity
Cognitive
empathy Aff_index
BSc vs. MSc Study year in the
bachelor
Perceived similarity 1.1 rejected 2.1 slightly accepted 3.1 rejected 4.1 rejected 4.2 rejected 9 accepted
Cognitive empathy 1.2 partially accepted 2.2 ambiguous findings 3.2 slightly rejected 5.1 rejected 5.2 rejected 10 accepted
Aff_index 1.3 partially accepted 2.3 rejected 3.3 rejected 6.1 rejected 6.2 rejected 11 accepted 13 accepted
Cross-cultural
experience 1.4 rejected 2.4 accepted 3.4 accepted 7.1 accepted
7.2 partially
accepted 12 rejected
14 ambiguous
findings
15 women: accepted
men: rejected
Age 8.1 accepted 8.2 accepted
42
Table 9. Hypotheses and their status (accepted, rejected, etc.)
Hypotheses Status of
hypotheses: Nr. Hypotheses:
1.1 Males score lower than females with regard to the extent of perceived similarity. Rejected
1.2 Males score lower than females with regard to the extent of cognitive empathy. Partially accepted
1.3 Males score lower than females with regard to the extent of affective empathy. Partially accepted
1.4 Males and females do not score differently with regard to the extent of cross-cultural experience. Rejected
2.1 Students with two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-Dutch parent
score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard to the
extent of perceived similarity.
Slightly accepted
2.2 Students who have two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-Dutch
parent score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard
to the extent of cognitive empathy.
Ambiguous
findings
2.3 Students who have two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-Dutch
parent score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard
to the extent of affective empathy.
Rejected
2.4 Students who have two Dutch parents score lowest; students with one Dutch and one non-Dutch
parent score intermediate; and students who have two non-Dutch parents score highest with regard
to the extent of cross-cultural experience.
Accepted
3.1 Age is positively correlated with the extent of perceived similarity. Rejected
3.2 Age is positively correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy. Slightly rejected
3.3 Age is positively correlated with the extent of affective empathy. Rejected
3.4 Age is positively correlated with the extent of cross-cultural experience. Accepted
4.1 Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of perceived similarity. Rejected
4.2 Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of perceived similarity. Rejected
5.1 Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of cognitive empathy. Rejected
5.2 Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy. Rejected
6.1 Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of affective empathy. Rejected
6.2 Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of affective empathy. Rejected
7.1 Bachelor students score lower than master students regarding the extent of cross-cultural e. Accepted
7.2 Study year in the bachelor is not correlated with the extent of cross-cultural experience. Partially accepted
8.1 Bachelor students are younger than master students. Accepted
8.2 Study year in the bachelor is positively correlated with age. Accepted
9 The participants do not feel similar to the protagonist (score lower than 4, neutral, on the 7 point
Likert scale, which means that they disagree with the proposition that they feel similar to the
protagonist).
Accepted
10 The extent of perceived similarity has a positive correlation with the extent of cognitive empathy. Accepted
11 The extent of perceived similarity has a positive correlation with the extent of affective empathy. Accepted
12 The extent of perceived similarity has a positive correlation with the extent of cross-cultural
experience.
Rejected
13 The extent of affective empathy is positively correlated with the extent of cognitive empathy. Accepted
14 The extent of cross-cultural experience is positively correlated with the extent of cognitive
empathy.
ambiguous
findings
15 The extent of cross-cultural experience is positively correlated with the extent of affective
empathy.
Women: accepted
Men: rejected
43
10.1 Vignettes
The assumptions that vignette lunch and negotiate were not different with regard to perceived similarity,
cognitive empathy, and affective empathy was falsified. Participants reported less similarity and more cognitive and
affective empathy for Mike in vignette lunch than for Jane in vignette negotiate. We can conclude that type of
vignette influences the degree to which people can relate to the main character of the vignette and the degree to
which people can empathize with the main character. Research is needed to uncover why certain vignettes elicit
more empathy than others. Future research could focus on identifying what elements in vignettes elicit empathy.
Since the degree of empathy was different for different vignettes, we recommend using multiple vignettes and/or
submit vignette(s) to elaborate pre-testing.
When speculating why the participants felt less cognitive and affective empathy for Jane than for Mike, we
could offer a few possible explanations. Perhaps the context of raising children in vignette negotiate was too
unfamiliar for the students which caused less empathy because they couldn’t relate to the situation. The fact that
there were four characters in vignette negotiate (compared to two in vignette lunch) could have been confusing for
the participant or lead their attention away from Jane. Moreover, the fact that Jane was not directly affected by the
‘problem’ (Jane felt discomfort because she believed that Jennifer received poor upbringing) of vignette negotiate,
could decrease empathy for Jane since Jennifer was the person that was directly affected by the ‘poor upbringing’
and not Jane.
To improve the quality of the vignettes they could be reviewed by a panel of people who have the same
nationality as the protagonist (for instance in a focus group discussion). We recommend using multiple vignettes to
reduce bias caused by a single vignette. To correct for interpersonal differences multiple vignettes could be
administered to a single participant. The present study incorporated two cultures in each vignette. Theoretically
more cultures could be incorporated in a single vignette. Since there are so many different cultures in the world, a
selection has to be made when designing a vignette because not all cultures can be incorporated. This is a limitation
in the use of vignettes.
Future research could analyse students’ empathic attitudes towards different cultures before and after traveling
abroad and compare those findings. When selecting students who are going to a certain country, for example France,
vignettes could be created that specifically represent the French culture. Presenting different ‘French’ vignettes
before and after for example an internship in France could measure how empathy towards the French culture
changes as a result of the trip. When also using a control group in such an experiment that doesn’t go to France
allows correcting for attitude changes that occur through, for example, media as a result of news events.
10.2 Perceived similarity
The participants did not feel similar to Jane or Mike, which confirms hypothesis 9. In the research of Nelson and
Baumgarte perceived similarity was used to check whether the cultural manipulation (similar versus dissimilar
protagonist) was successful. The fact that the participants did not feel similar with the main characters (that we
derived from columns of an Indonesian and a Ghanaian person) of the vignettes indicates that we were successful in
creating a non-Dutch perspective. This corresponds to the ‘dissimilar vignettes’ that were used in Nelson and
Baumgarte, which was what we intended. We cannot conclude that we were successful in creating an Indonesian
and a Ghanaian vignette since we did not check this.
44
Cognitive and affective empathy were positively correlated with perceived similarity in both vignettes
which confirms hypotheses 10 and 11 respectively.
There were no correlations found between perceived similarity and indicators of cross-cultural experience so
hypothesis 12 is rejected.
10.3 Cross-cultural experience
The present study faced some limitations regarding measuring the amount of cross-cultural experience.
Firstly, we made a single check box for the cluster ‘Norway/Sweden/Finland’ instead of asking about Norway,
Sweden, and Finland separately which decreased the level of precision for some of the variables, such as ‘total
number of countries visited’. Secondly, recall bias could have biased the results: the students may for example not
have remembered all countries that they visited in their life or all the study / work trips that they made abroad.
Thirdly, we didn’t measure how often participants visited each country. This could be a suggestion for future
research.
In the open question (item 21) about other cultural experiences several participants wrote down that they
had a foreign boy- or girlfriend or that they participated in online gaming with people of different cultures. We
suggest to include the following indicators of cross-cultural experience in future research: amount of friends of
different cultures, nationalities of (previous) girlfriend(s) / boyfriend(s) and online contact with different
nationalities (for example through gaming, forums, etc.).
10.4 Gender
Men and women did not differ with regard to perceived similarity in both vignettes so hypothesis 1.1 is rejected.
Women scored higher than men with regard to cognitive and affective empathy in vignette lunch, as
expected based on previous literature. We also expected that women would report more empathy in vignette
negotiate but that wasn’t the case. This could be attributed to the differences between vignettes lunch and negotiate.
These results partially confirm hypothesis 1.2 and 1.3.
Men and women were different with regard to cross-cultural experience which meant that hypothesis 1.4 is
rejected. The women in our sample had more cross-cultural experience than the men. Women spent more time
abroad for study, residing, and (volunteer) work combined (variable A) and more time abroad for (volunteer) work
(item 17.2). Women visited more countries in their life (variable C) than men and visited more countries of the least
popular segment (countries that were visited by nine or less different participants: countr_very_scarce). Men
reported more interactions with people from a different cultural background within their studies (item 22) than
women.
10.5 Nationality of parents
The men with at least one non-Dutch parent who had vignette negotiate felt more similar to Jane than the men who
had vignette negotiate and had two Dutch parents. There were no perceived similarity differences between students
who had at least one non-Dutch parent and students with two Dutch parents within males who had vignette lunch or
within in women. These results provided some support for hypothesis 2.1.
45
The findings with regard to nationality of parents versus cognitive empathy were ambiguous. Within male
students who had vignette lunch, males with at least one non-Dutch parent assigned more blame to Mike (item 3)
than males with two Dutch parents. This was the opposite of what we expected. Within male students who had
vignette negotiate, males with at least one non-Dutch parent thought that Jane’s response was more appropriate to
the situation (item 5) and agreed more with the statement that they ‘would have responded the same way as Jane’
(item 7) than males who had two Dutch parents. We can conclude that hypothesis 2.2 cannot be confirmed or
rejected. There were no differences found in affective empathy between students with at least one non-Dutch parent
and students with two Dutch parents so hypothesis 2.3 is rejected. The sample sizes of the analyses regarding
nationality of parents were small so this must be taken into account.
Hypothesis 2.4 can be confirmed since students with at least one non-Dutch parent had more cross-cultural
experience than students with two Dutch parents. Male students with at least one non-Dutch parent spent more time
abroad for residence (variable 15.2) and visited more Asian and South-American countries than male students with
two Dutch parents. Female students with at least one non-Dutch parent visited more North-American countries than
female students with two Dutch parents.
10.6 Age
The age range of the participants was chosen beforehand: 18 to 35 years old. The actual age range of the participants
was 18 to 32 with an average age of 21 years.
Perceived similarity was not correlated with age in men and negatively correlated with age within women
(in both vignettes) so hypothesis 3.1 is rejected.
The only correlation that was found between cognitive empathy and age was a negative correlation between
age and item 6 (I find it difficult to relate to what Jane is feeling) within women who had vignette negotiate. In the
absence of positive correlations hypothesis 3.2 is rejected. Affective empathy was not correlated with age in both
vignettes in men or women so we reject hypothesis 3.3.
We concluded that cross-cultural experience was positively correlated with age so hypothesis 3.4 is
accepted; age was within men positively correlated with: time spent abroad for study (item 16.2), time spent abroad
for work (item 17.2), interactions with foreign cultures within the study (item 22), total time spent abroad (variable
A), and number of African countries visited. Within women, age was positively correlated with: the amount of
interactions with foreign cultures within the study (item 22) and total time spent abroad (variable A).
10.7 Study phase
Bachelor students felt more similar to Mike in vignette lunch than master students so hypothesis 4.1 is rejected.
There were no differences between bachelor and master students with regard to cognitive and affective empathy in
vignette lunch or in vignette negotiate so hypotheses 5.1 and 6.1 are rejected. Master students were older than
bachelor students so hypothesis 8.1 is accepted. Master students have spent more time abroad in for residing, study,
and (volunteer) work combined (variable A), spent more time abroad for study (item 16.2), visited more countries in
their life (variable C), visited more countries in the most popular segment (countr_very_popular), and reported more
interactions with cultures in their study (item 22) than bachelor students. These results show strong support for
accepting hypothesis 7.1.
46
There were no correlations found between study year in the bachelor and: perceived similarity, cognitive empathy,
and affective empathy in vignette lunch or vignette negotiate. These results reject hypotheses 4.2, 5.2, and 6.2.
Study year in the bachelor was positively correlated with age, accepting hypothesis 8.2. Study year in the bachelor
positively correlated with amount of time spent abroad for study (variable 16.2) and with interaction with cultures
within the study (question 22) which means that there are indications that hypothesis 7.2 can be accepted.
10.8 Study
Our sample was not representative for Wageningen University according to distribution of number of students of
each study that was present in our sample. Especially bachelor biology students were overrepresented which allowed
us to analyse this group of students separately.
The present study only included students in higher education (HBO and University). It would be interesting
to expand the target group to people of 18-35 years old who are working, unemployed, and studying MBO. Since
the results of Avans Hogeschool and Wageningen University were comparable, this might indicate that the results of
the present study could be generalized to all students that are highly educated.
10.9 Correlations between cognitive empathy, affective empathy, and cross-cultural
experience
Affective and cognitive empathy
Affective and cognitive empathy were positively correlated so hypothesis 13 is accepted.
Affective empathy and cross-cultural experience
Affective empathy was positively correlated with six indicators of cross-cultural experience within women who had
vignette lunch. The strongest correlation was found between interest in foreign cultures and aff_index in women
(rho=0,466). There were no correlations found between affective empathy and cross-cultural experience in men. We
can conclude that hypothesis 15 is accepted for women and rejected for men.
Cognitive empathy and cross-cultural experience
Visiting countries in the continent Oceania was positively correlated with cognitive empathy index in men. Number
of countries visited in Europe was negatively correlated with cognitive empathy index in men. The magnitude of this
finding was supported by the fact that 86 per cent of all countries that were mentioned (which means: visited at least
once) by the students were European. Thus it is not surprizing that total number of countries visited was also
negatively correlated with cognitive empathy index in men. Since most of the countries in the group countr_popular
(consisting of the countries: Portugal, Turkey, United States, Denmark, Luxemburg, Poland, Croatia, Hungary,
Canada, and Egypt) are European, it is also not surprizing that countr_popular was also negatively correlated with
cognitive empathy index in men. When looking at individual items of cognitive empathy, the notion that the
findings with regard to cognitive empathy and cross-cultural indicators are very ambiguous is reconfirmed.
We speculate that the ambiguous correlations regarding European and Oceanian countries can be explained
by imagining two types of travel behaviour. The first type of traveller wants to visit beaches, hotels, beautiful
surroundings, and cities from a touristic (or external) perspective. This type would stay in the safe European
47
environment of the travel industry. Staying in hotels or on camping’s with other (Dutch) tourists and the interactions
with the host culture are minimalized to formal interactions with waiting staff, shop owners, etc. The second type of
traveller would want to experience the culture from the perspective of the host culture. This type would travel a lot,
also outside the realm of popular countries, and seek interactions with the host culture. It would be interesting to
analyse traveling types in future research by asking why people go abroad (what intentions and desires they have),
with whom they travel, and what activities they undertake while travelling. It would also be interesting to measure
the interests of the parents of the students because the parents could affect the empathy and travel interests of the
students. In addition, more research is needed to uncover why men and women differ with regard to cross-cultural
experience.
10.10 Bennett framework of intercultural sensitivity
The Bennett framework of intercultural sensitivity was used to create a link between the concepts ‘empathy’ and
‘intercultural experience’. Empathy is described in the adaptation phase of the framework of intercultural
sensitivity. Hammer, Bennett , and Wiseman (2003) created a tool that could place someone on the continuum from
ethnocentrism to ethnorelativism. We could not access this proprietary tool due to financial limitations of the present
study and therefore we could not assess in which stages of the continuum our participants were. Since we couldn’t
assess in which phase (from denial to integration) each participant was, we were not able to reflect on the accuracy
of the framework nor its usefulness for the present research. Moreover, we only assessed empathy and not all
aspects that were mentioned in the framework of intercultural sensitivity. It must by noted that the framework of
intercultural sensitivity does not claim to measure the extent of intercultural experience but merely the extent of
intercultural competence. Therefore connections and links between the concept of cross-cultural experience and the
concept of intercultural sensitivity cannot be drawn based on the present study. We therefore can conclude that the
present study cannot support nor reject the hypothesis that cross-cultural experience moves students to later stages of
the Bennett framework.
10.11 Nelson and Baumgarte (2004)
Nelson and Baumgarte (2004) showed that U.S. participants found it harder to empathize with a non-U.S.
perspective. The present study did not compare the responses of Dutch participants to a Dutch and a non-Dutch
perspective. Therefore we cannot conclude that the results of Nelson and Baumgarte on U.S. participants can be
generalized to Dutch participants. However we did find that Dutch participants did not feel similar to the non-Dutch
protagonists. U.S. participants also didn’t feel similar to non-U.S. protagonists. More research is needed to confirm
whether Dutch participants respond the same as U.S. participants in other aspects as well. With regard to the use of
vignettes, the present study can confirm their usefulness for eliciting cognitive and affective empathy. We
recommend using vignettes when budget and duration of the study are limited. However, accuracy of vignettes
should be evaluated: whether real-life intercultural encounters elicit the same degree and type of empathy as
vignettes. We found that type of vignette greatly influences empathic responses and therefore the type of vignette
should be chosen carefully and undergo extensive pre-testing.
48
10.12 Main conclusions and recommendations
The main conclusions are:
Type of vignette influenced the degree to which people related to the main character of the vignette and the
degree to which people experienced cognitive and affective empathy after reading the dissimilar cultural
perspective.
Women scored higher on the indicators that were used for to cross-cultural experience than men.
Women scored higher on affective empathy than men.
Affective empathy was positively correlated with cross-cultural experience in women, but not in men.
Cognitive empathy had both positive and negative correlations with cross-cultural experience throughout
both vignettes and across both sexes. It is not clear how all these ambiguities can be explained.
Master students scored higher on the indicators of the cross-cultural experience but did not score higher on
empathy than bachelor students
Continents were ambiguously correlated with cognitive empathy (number of countries visited in Oceania
was positively and number of European countries was negatively correlated with cognitive empathy)
Age was positively correlated with cross-cultural experience (people who were older had more cross-cultural
experience) but not with empathy. Age could therefore not explain the correlations that were found between
empathy and cross-cultural experience. These results indicate that age wasn’t a confounding factor regarding this
relationship.
The main recommendations are:
Measuring what countries were visited could be useful, we found that correlations between empathy and
number of countries visited differed per continent.
Researching motives for traveling abroad could unravel the ambiguous relationships that were found
between empathy and cross-cultural experience.
Researching the differences between man and in women in travel behaviour and travel motives.
Using vignettes is a cheap and easy method.
Researching what elements in vignette trigger empathy (for example by using in-depth interviews to
examine how people perceived different vignettes)
49
11 References
Anggrek, J. (2011, November 3). Negotiate... Negotiate... Negotiate... Resource, 6(6).
Bennett, M. J. (1998). Basic concepts of intercultural communication: Selected readings: Intercultural
Press.
Broome, B. J. (1991). Building shared meaning: Implications of a relational approach to empathy for
teaching intercultural communication. Communication Education, 40(3), 235-249.
Bryant, I. M. (2012, May 24). Luncher shock. Resource, 6(19).
CBS. (2013). Vakanties; kerncijfers. Retrieved from
http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=70232ned&D1=74-
117&D2=(l-9)-l&HD=140430-1747&HDR=G1&STB=T
Chen, G.-M., & Starosta, W. J. (1998). Foundations of intercultural communication: Allyn and Bacon
Boston, MA.
Cushner, K., & Brislin, R. W. (1997). Improving intercultural interactions: Modules for cross-cultural
training programs (Vol. 2): Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behav Cogn Neurosci
Rev, 3(2), 71-100. doi: 10.1177/1534582304267187
Erikson, E. H. (1965). Childhood and society. London: The Hogarth Press.
Hall, B. J. (2005). Among cultures: The challenge of communication: Thomson Wadsworth Belmont, CA.
Hammer, M. R., Bennett, M. J., & Wiseman, R. (2003). Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The
intercultural development inventory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27(4), 421-
443. doi: 10.1016/s0147-1767(03)00032-4
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G., & Minkov, M. (2011). Cultures and organizations - software of the mind:
McGraw Hill.
Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1990). A comparison of seven-point and visual analogue scales:
data from a randomized trial. Controlled clinical trials, 11(1), 43-51.
Myyry, L., & Helkama, K. (2001). University students' value priorities and emotional empathy.
Educational Psychology, 21(1), 25-40.
Nelson, D. W. (2009). Feeling good and open-minded: The impact of positive affect on cross cultural
empathic responding. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(1), 53-63.
Nelson, D. W., & Baumgarte, R. (2004). Cross‐Cultural Misunderstandings Reduce Empathic
Responding1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 391-401.
Ott, R. L., & Longnecker, M. (2001). An Introduction to Statistical Methods and Data Analysis (fifth
edition ed.). USA: Duxbury.
Regan, D. T., & Totten, J. (1975). Empathy and attribution: turning observers into actors. Journal of
Personality and social Psychology, 32(5), 850-856.
Singer, T., Seymour, B., O'Doherty, J. P., Stephan, K. E., Dolan, R. J., & Frith, C. D. (2006). Empathic
neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others. Nature, 439(7075), 466-469.
doi: 10.1038/nature04271
Stepien, K. A., & Baernstein, A. (2006). Educating for empathy. A review. J Gen Intern Med, 21(5), 524-
530. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00443.x
50
Appendix 1. Questionnaire with vignette lunch (protagonist Mike)
Master thesis Inge Janssen
Department of Communication science
Wageningen University
Dear student,
I’m doing a research to finish my master studies Development and Rural Innovation and I appreciate
your cooperation.
You are going to read a small text about Mike, an international student at Wageningen University.
Then you are asked to answer some questions about the text, about your experiences abroad, and
with different cultures.
When you are interested in the findings of the research I can send you an abstract of the research. In
that case you can fill in your e-mail address at the end of this questionnaire. The research will be
finished in half a year.
Participating in this research will take approximately fifteen minutes. Everything will be treated
confidential and anonymously.
Thank you so much in advance,
Inge Janssen.
51
Below you find a short text about Mike, an international student at Wageningen University. Please
read the text carefully and proceed on the next page with the questions.
Text
Mike is an exchange student at Wageningen University. He meets a Dutch guy,
named Tom in one of the lectures. They often sit next to each other, talk about
all sorts of topics, and Mike has the feeling they get along very well. In one of
their talks Tom proposes to have lunch together at the campus restaurant the
next day. Mike is exited and looks forward to an elaborate lunch. Since his stay
in the Netherlands he had a lot of unforeseen expenses, this lunch was a
welcome treat to look forward to. Then next morning Mike dresses nicely for
the occasion. That afternoon Mike and Tom take a seat at one of the tables in
the restaurant. Tom opens his bag, takes out a plastic bag with sandwiches and
starts eating. Mike feels confused but patiently waits for Tom while they are
chatting. When Tom has finished the bread, Mike thinks what he will take for
lunch in the restaurant. Then Tom says: “It was nice having lunch with you”,
and walks away, leaving Mike shocked and insulted. What have I done to
deserve to be treated so rude, thinks Mike. Mike was under the impression that
Tom could be a friend but feels confused and offended now.
52
These questions are about the text.
1. What is you initial reaction after reading this text?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Please rate to what extent you agree to the following statements:
Co
mp
lete
ly d
isag
ree
Dis
agre
e
Sli
gh
tly d
isag
ree
Neu
tral
Sli
gh
tly a
gre
e
Ag
ree
Co
mp
lete
ly a
gre
e
2. I feel similar to Mike.
3. Mike is to blame for his bad feelings.
4. Mike's distress a result of the unpleasantness and difficulty of the
situation.
5. Mike's emotional reaction is appropriate to the situation.
6. I find it difficult to relate to what Mike is feeling.
7. An average person would have responded the same way as Mike.
8. I would have responded differently than Mike
9. While I read the story, I felt sympathetic.
10. While I read the story, I felt compassionate.
11. While I read the story, I felt moved.
12. While I read the story, I felt warm.
13. While I read the story, I felt soft-hearted.
The next questions regard you’re experiences abroad and with different cultures.
14. Do you currently live in The Netherlands?
No In which country do you live? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
How long have you lived here? . . . . . . . . . year / months (indicate which one applies)
Yes
53
15. Besides your current home, have you ever lived outside The Netherlands? (Aside from during study trip,
internship, thesis, or during (volunteer)work)
No
Yes, when I was between. . . . and . . . . years old I lived in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(and between. . . . and . . . . years old I lived in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )
(and between. . . . and . . . . years old I lived in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )
(and between. . . . and . . . . years old I lived in . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . )
16. Have you even been abroad for school or study? (For example, for a study trip, exchange program,
internship, or thesis)
No
Yes, all trips combined, I have been abroad for study. . . . . . . months (and . . . . weeks) in . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (multiple countries
possible)
17. Have you ever done (volunteer) work abroad? (Aside from work for study, such as an internship)
No
Yes, in total I have spent . . . . months (and . . . . weeks) in. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (multiple countries possible)
18. Have you even been on holidays abroad?
No Please continue with question 22.
Yes
19. How often do you go on holidays abroad on average?
Once every three years (or less)
Once every two years
Once every year
Twice per year
Three times per year
Four time per year (or more)
54
20. In which countries have you been on holidays? (multiple countries possible)
Belgium
France
Spain
Portugal
Austria
Switzerland
Great Britain
Germany
Italy
Norway/Sweden/Finland
Greece
Czech Republic
Turkey
United States
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
21. Aside from study, work and residing have you had any relevant experience in foreign cultures?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Please rate to what extent you agree to the following statements:
Co
mp
lete
ly d
isag
ree
Dis
agre
e
Sli
gh
tly
dis
agre
e
Neu
tral
Sli
gh
tly
ag
ree
Ag
ree
Co
mp
lete
ly a
gre
e
22. Within my studies I frequently interact with people of different
cultures.
23. Outside my studies I frequently interact with people of different
cultures.
24. I am interested in foreign cultures.
55
25. Age: . . . . . . . years
26. Gender: M / F (please indicate which one applies)
27. Nationality: O Dutch (second nationality)
O Other: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28. Nationality father: O Dutch (second nationality)
O Other: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I don’t know
29. Nationality mother: O Dutch (second nationality)
O Other: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I don’t know
30. Study year: O 1st year BSc. O 1
st year MSc. O Other: . . . . . . . . .
O 2nd
year BSc. O 2nd
year MSc.
O 3rd
year BSc. O 3rd
year MSc.
O 4th year BSc. O 4
th year MSc.
O 5th year BSc. O 5
th year MSc.
31. Study program: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32. Do you have any remarks or tips regarding this questionnaire? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . .
Thank you so much for participating in this research!
I want to receive a single e-mail with the results of this research: . . . . . . .